• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Internet Trouble


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 31 October 2002 - 03:55 AM


I read this at Tompaine.com. It is an article about possible changes to the internet. Especially how we pay for it. I see it as another sign of the incestuous partnership that has developed between business and government...a partnership that was never intended by the constitution.

**********************************

The Death Of The Internet
How Industry Intends To Kill The 'Net As We Know It

Jeff Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.


The Internet’s promise as a new medium -- where text, audio, video and data can be freely exchanged -- is under attack by the corporations that control the public’s access to the 'Net, as they see opportunities to monitor and charge for the content people seek and send. The industry’s vision is the online equivalent of seizing the taxpayer-owned airways, as radio and television conglomerates did over the course of the 20th century.

To achieve this, the cable industry, which sells Internet access to most Americans, is pursuing multiple strategies to closely monitor and tightly control subscribers and their use of the net. One element can be seen in industry lobbying for new use-based pricing schemes, which has been widely reported in trade press. Related to this is the industry’s new public relations campaign, which seeks to introduce a new "menace" into the pricing debate and boost their case, the so-called "bandwidth hog."

But beyond political and press circles are another equally important development: new technologies being developed and embraced that can, in practice, transform today's open Internet into a new industry-regulated system that will prevent or discourage people from using the net for file-sharing, internet radio and video, and peer-to-peer communications. These are not merely the most popular cutting-edge applications used by young people; they also are the tools for fundamental new ways of conducting business and politics.

These goals and objectives are visible to anyone who cares to look at the arcane world of telecommunications policy and planning, either in the industry trade press or government documents. The bottom line is the industry want to kill the Internet as we know it.

Take a minute and wade through this bit of arcana -- and ponder its implications.

"The IP Service Control System from Ellacoya Networks gives the Broadband Operator ‘Total Service Control’ to closely monitor and tightly control its subscribers, network and offerings." So reads the Web site of Ellacoya.com, a relatively new firm, describing the business-to-business service that it is selling to large Internet service providers.

Ellacoya is backed by Wall Street investment powerhouse, Goldman Sachs, which sees a major opportunity to turn around the red ink-plagued broadband sector. Continuing, the website explains, "Establishing Total Service control enables operators to better manage traffic on the network, [and] easily introduce a range of tiered and usage based service plans... Talkative applications, especially peer-to-peer programs like KaZaA and Morpheus, tend to fill all of the available bandwidth... The IP Service Control System allows operators to identify, limit and report on these aggressive applications."

The fundamental character of the Internet today is that it lacks precisely these kinds of tolls, barriers and gatekeepers. But technology like Ellacoya’s hardware and software is not just an enticing idea; it’s more of a silver bullet for beleaguered telecom executives. It’s being tested in industry trials and points to the kind of Internet the industry would like to develop over the next few years. The way telecom corporations get from today’s open-access Internet to their version of the future starts by changing how people pay for the net.


Industry's New Business Plan
Most people now pay a flat fee for online access. But the big media companies offering Internet service; Comcast, ATT, AOL -- would like to change that, and already have in a few test locations.
The broadband industry’s plans to institute tiered pricing have been widely reported in its trade press. There are numerous articles about replacing today’s open 'Net environment with industry-self-described versions of "walled gardens" or "Internet Lite." (See "Cable Operators Seek to Corral Bandwidth Hogs", Cable Datacom News, 10/01/02) The central feature of these proposals is much like telephone companies; there’s a price plan for everyone.

To make the case to regulators that such pricing is fair and overdue, cable operators have begun a PR effort, spinning that a small percent of users account for a disproportionately large amount of bandwidth used on broadband networks. They’ve created and embraced the pejorative term, "bandwidth hog," to describe those -- such as music-obsessed college students -- who find robust uses for high-speed connections. Already major news sources, such as the BBC, and technology journalists are using the term in their reports.

To deal with this "problem," the companies are considering a variety of approaches to ensure they remain in full control of their bandwidth -- unless consumers can afford to pay the hefty access fees. Under a typical plan, a user would be allotted a limited amount of bandwidth per month, and would be charged extra fees for going over this amount. This approach isn’t very different from the software industry, where the free versions of an application are intended to frustrate and prompt people to buy the ‘better’ version.

Bandwidth caps have already been implemented in Canada by major Internet service provider Sympatico, Inc., and observers have been quick to note that the limit -- 5 GB per month -- would effectively restrict regular use of emerging applications such as Internet radio, streaming media and video-on-demand.

Consider this excerpt from an article about Sympatico’s bandwidth caps in the May 6 edition of Toronto Globe and Mail by reporter Jack Kapica.


A classic conflict has arisen over streaming media, especially of radio. In a recent letter to globetechnology.com, Andrew Cole, manager of media relations for Bell Sympatico, defended the 5GB bit cap, saying that "In my experience, Internet radio stations usually transmit at approximately 20 Kbps. This equates to 1.2MB per minute, or 72MB per hour. At this rate, a HSE customer could enjoy 70 hours of Internet Radio per month and remain within the bandwidth usage plan."
But a 20-Kbps stream is considered poor quality by many people who tune into Internet-based radio stations for such things as classical music concerts. For these people, audio quality streamed at 20 Kbps has been described as "pathetic at best, somewhat akin to AM radio" by Tony Petrilli of Level Platforms Inc. of Ottawa.

"Decent audio quality starts at 56 Kbps to 64 Kbps, and really gets acceptable only around 100 Kbps," he said. This alone, continued Mr. Petrilli, "will blow the cap, let alone any other form of surfing, such as looking at movie trailers or even reading Web-based news. Heaven forbid that someone listens to 90 minutes a day of quality Internet radio. That way we'd blow the cap in 20 days.

When you consider the fact that the largest American telecommunications firms are often part of the same mega-corporation with music, video or movie-producing entertainment divisions -- such as AOL-Time Warner -- you can see how an industry-regulated Internet would handily end music and movie industry worries about Napster-like file swapping by people who don’t want to pay industry-monopolized retail prices for content.

Thus, the strategic and technically feasible solutions embodied by companies such as Ellacoya is obviously why Goldman-Sachs was keen to invest in the firm -- as it offers the actual means to monetize the net and turn around the revenue-poor broadband sector.

According to Ellacoya’s technical datasheet, operators can create "up to 51,000 unique policies that can be combined to generate limitless numbers of subscriber policies." Such rules, they explain, can either permit, deny, priority queues, address lock, rate limit or redirect access. The same technology also poses new concerns over privacy, since Ellacoya's technology "collects usage statistics for subscribers and applications, capturing service events, session details, and byte counts.... Operators can 'stamp' the subscribers identity on all records."


The Industry Spin
The cable industry will argue that such ubiquitous control systems and restrictive pricing structures are necessary to resolve bandwidth backups. But the fact is, this cannot be the case, because cable systems are constructed to avoid bandwidth shortages. But don't take my word for it.
Mike LaJoie, vice president for advanced technology at AOL-Time Warner told MultiChannel News, "The way that the HFC (hybrid fiber coaxial) architecture works, we never run out of bandwidth," LaJoie said. "We can always split or do other things that will give us the bandwidth that we want, so it really ends up being a desire to provide the best and highest experience for our customers." (See "HD on VOD Searches for Resolution", Multichannel News, 09/30/02) What these statements make clear is that the cable industry's goal for broadband is to monetize bandwidth. By charging a toll for every bit, the industry can simultaneously extract great profits from the new applications that it allows on its networks, as well as restrict access to those that it finds problematic, i.e. those that compete with its own content offerings. In short, the industry finally sees a way to make money online.

Of course, these calculations are utterly self-serving, ignoring the fact that the net was developed with tax dollars and has been an incubator for an array of innovations that extend far beyond creating new profit centers for big media companies. The envisioned control structures will inhibit robust Internet use by early broadband adopters, and discourage development of new high-speed applications such as Internet-based telephone and video-on-demand, thus slowing overall broadband growth.

Worse, this business model will erect high economic and technical barriers to entry for non-commercial and public interest uses of the high-speed Internet, threatening civic discourse, artistic expression and non-profit communications. In moving to implement this highly centralized vision for broadband, the cable industry does not simply ignore the democratic and competitive history of the Internet -- it is actively hostile to it.

Consumption-based pricing and other restrictive access controls contradict the spirit of openness and innovation that built the Internet in the first place, and will do irreparable harm to its future as a medium for small business initiatives, non-commercial users and democratic discourse. New threats to privacy are also clear, given the intrusive nature of the technology to closely monitor all online use. If you think spam is bad now...


And Where Is The FCC?
This new threat to online communications is a direct consequence of recent Federal Communications Commission policies by Chairman Michael Powell that permit cable companies to operate their broadband platforms in a "discriminatory, non-open access" manner. This legalese means the FCC, the historic guardian of the public interest in the communications field, has abdicated its founding charge: to serve the public interest before private interests.
In sum, the Internet as we now know it -- and its revolutionary promise -- may soon pass into the history books. In the absence of public policy safeguards, the emerging pricing and control structures will fundamentally change the kinds of information -- and way it’s delivered -- on the Internet. The ramifications extend far beyond the quarterly reports and shareholder earnings for the nation’s telecommunications corporations.

The consequences are cultural and will affect the pace and character of progress in the early 21st century. If the communications companies impose tolls, roadblocks and dead ends on the information ‘superhighway,’ they will be robbing public trust resources in much the same way 19th century mining companies pilfered public lands and 20th century radio and television networks privatized the public’s airwaves.

#2 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 31 October 2002 - 03:14 PM

I read this at Tompaine.com. It is an article about possible changes to the internet. Especially how we pay for it. I see it as another sign of the incestuous partnership that has developed between business and government...a partnership that was never intended by the constitution.


Mind this historically and politically both naive and representative of as much myth as the story of Washington's Chopped Cherry (tree).

The Founder's and Framer's of the Constitution were early Buccanneer Capitalists, slavers, and frontier warrior colonists. Hell the Spanish weren't as politically apologetic, they out and out called them Conquistadores. But when our Imperialist Capitalists negotiated with Technocrats, Theocrats, General Colonialists, and Freemen ( as well as the Slave Populations) of Slave roots they had a different dilemma, it was one they incorporated INTO the Constitution not one they ignored, or avoided as not their responsibility or fault. Oh, don't forget that whether assimilating or protagonistic, the negotiations with Native American Populations either.

Ironically, many of the reasons for the Revolution in the first place were the demand for the protections of Property the Crown wouldn't extend to the colonialists with regard to the Crown's Seizures and Impressments. Did you ever take the time to look at "what " the British Navy was seizing?

In many respects the Founding Father's of the Constitution were doing nothing less then trying to legitimize what was seen as piracy, smuggling, illegal slaving, taxable trade, and taxable responsibility to common urban development. This is why it was possible to look at what was going on in the debates of the Constitutional Congress and write the Federalist Papers outlining the trends leading to the Civil War.

#3 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 31 October 2002 - 03:36 PM

Free Trade in the entire history of the Human "State" has been synonymous with (Un) versus Licensed trade, which is another way of saying Black Market Piracy from the perspective of all Theories of State when not approved by consensus and regulated.

This is why the debate facing Libertarians always ends up sounding like a defence of anarchy in this respect. The irony is that on a certain level it is exactly that, a defence of Social Anarchy that isn't violent but descriptive of the Community of a Free People. Le Guin's "Social Anarchists", Ayn Rand's "Freemen" Societies.

Oh, and this dichotomy in the Social Political Model is at the core of the conflict on the global scale of national sovereignty that is coalescing into World War Three. So it isn't just some esoteric aside.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,150 posts
  • 581
  • Location:UK

Posted 31 October 2002 - 06:42 PM

When the WWW became common, the predictions were, that in the future, acess would be totally free, but the content would not be.

We have been moving towards this more slowly than many expected, but maybe there is not other future for the medium - at least for the average, noncriminal user?


.

#5 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 31 October 2002 - 09:49 PM

In many respects the Founding Father's of the Constitution were doing nothing less then trying to legitimize what was seen as piracy, smuggling, illegal slaving, taxable trade, and taxable responsibility to common urban development.


"what was seen"...Seen through who's eyes? Seen from the Kings' eyes? From the world's eyes? From historical eyes?

Also, are you advocating government control instead of free expression at the level of the internet and in society in general? I couldn't tell for sure by your posts.

#6 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 01 November 2002 - 02:34 AM

Posted Image

Not everyone believes in the "Freedom of speech". To presume otherwise would be an incorrect assumption.


____________________________________________________________


Also, are you advocating government control instead of free expression at the level of the internet and in society in general?


Mind,

I will answer for myself.

I believe in the "essence of being" which allows for the freedom of expression.

Not everyone believes in the "Freedom of speech". To presume otherwise would be an incorrect assumption.

The following is a quote from Amendment I of the US Constitution:

____________________________________________________________

http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

____________________________________________________________

I firmly believe in Amendment I of the United States Constitution.

Best regards,

Bob

#7 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 01 November 2002 - 04:20 AM

I don't believe in the Constitution, I have willingly sworn to uphold and defend it. I agree with it and I understand it, but I have no faith in it. Faith isn't why I acknowledge its importance and value till today, comprehension and approval are.

And yes, by the standards of Torries and the Crown, we were the Terrorist Outlaws refusing the Right of Taxation and our responsibility for the general Defense of the Colonies. And yes many of the Founders were freebooters, slavers, and smugglers and did so because of the Economics of Contraband. That afterall is where the profits still are.

Did it every occur to any of you why we doing business with Barbary Pirates in the first place, such that we had to send Marines into Tripoli? How about the Hall's of Montezuma, did you know that it was a platoon of military school children that the Marines Massacred when they took the Palace at Chapultapec that the Marine Hymn refers to?

Our History is not so perfect as the Myths would have us believe but that doesn't take away from the importance of what our Constitution accomplished. But it was illegal trafficking in Kentucky Bourbon that goes right to heart of many of the motives for the Revolution, that Tobacco, guns, and Slaves.

The Crown was imposing restrictions on all of them, as well as limits to where and with whom the American Colonists could trade. That, and they were not allowed to have free access to Spanish goods that were not first licensed and taxed by the Crown. So yes we were the bad guys too in the eyes of civil authority and yes this gets very relativistic and relevent.

We were the radicals but we were not all in accord with one another historically. Ben Franklin's own son declared his father a traitor and returned to England after fleeing to Canada. And another reason we wanted our independence was so that we could steal the Native American Territories that were under protection of treaty with the Crown's of Europe. Some Founder's wanted an Empire right from the get go and if that isn't apparent then perhaps you should look into the story of Aaron Burr after he kills Hamilton, and WHY he killed Hamilton.

By the standards of the times of the Revolution, most Americans today are definable as Torries. The issues haven't actually changed so much that the argument can't be asserted. The real politicking was to able to bring together the divergent and potentially warring interests of Thirteen Independent Nation States (as the people saw their allegiance then) into one Nation. But this did not become a fact until after the Republic is tested in the Fires of the Civil War and our steel tempered in blood.

At the heart of the Revolution wasn't the idea of Free trade as Adam Smith defined it, but as the British Citizen as opposed to the Colonist practiced it, in other words, the privileged class. Habeas Corpus, protection against seizure and most importantly "Taxation without Representation". Jefferson, Monroe, Adams, Franklin, all emphasized NOT that they were against taxation but that without the concurrent and commensurate representation that payment of said tax made us entitled to, we felt compelled to sever our historic union of peoples.

If the Crown had granted to us the kind of autonomy that many in Parlament of the time were asking for, our revolution would have folded and ceased to exist. If the Colonists had even been granted a few token seats in the House of Commons we would probably still be British and the Sun would still not set on the British Empire. They never again forgot this lesson but after losing the Americas the decline of Britain became inevitable, even as it was still advancing.

The Age of Revolution began here and it spread across the world. It is arguable that it is still spreading. We did however go a step further with the Monroe Doctrine when we attempted to extend our territoriality to all the Americas and outlaw European (and any foreign) Colonial Interest in our hemisphere but while it was said to protect the spread freedom it was in reality that we viewed the Americas as ours by right of Manifest Destiny.

I have willingly served this Nation and I would do so again if called to defend the Constitution, but I would never do it, or encourage others to do so, out of mere faith in our system. Our system denies faith and demands participation or it will fail. That is why we separate Church and State and this was the single most radical proposition of the time. Much of the rest we inherit from the British when it comes to the functional structures of our Democracy.

I honor, respect ,and whole heartedly agree with all the difficult tenets and propositions of the United States Constitution but I most emphatically don't "believe" in them, I simply prefer them above all other alternatives I have studied and heard offered. Belief in Democracy is misplaced.

"what was seen"...Seen through who's eyes? Seen from the Kings' eyes? From the world's eyes? From historical eyes?


Yes we were the upstart outlaws with little education and a backwater backwoods mentality, we were the uncivilized and uncouth savages only little better then the slaves and natives by virtue of our common religious background and fairer skin tone, but the parentage of ALL colonists was considered suspect by Institutionalized Racist European Standards of the time. Doctrine that we inhereted withour sub-cultures that stil to today haunt us.

Also, are you advocating government control instead of free expression at the level of the internet and in society in general? I couldn't tell for sure by your posts.



I am quibbling with your outrage at what should have been obvious all along. I am whole heartedly AGAINST the trend but I have been a lone voice at times, and franlky for some time now it appears saying that FREE Speech isn't just for one group, it is for all groups and the Internet should be opened to all who want to participate isn't PC.

But the regulation of speech as I discussed with O'Rights in his numerous posts on the First Amendment can be defined as applicable and voluntarily restricted by establishing "Norms" for any particular non governmental function.

As I once before quipped to O'Rights; The Constitution is written in only seven elegantly simple articles which do a remarkable job of dividing the powers into separate branches of Government in order to insure the checks and balances of authority and protect the citizens against the inevitable excessive concentration of authority in any one branch.

They even mention in the first articles that all power not specifically defined as a part of government automatically reverts to the States and Citizens, but after they got all done they remembered to go back and define exactly what "Power" is. To accomplish that they wrote the "Amendments" beginning with the Bill of Rights.

#8 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 01 November 2002 - 05:19 AM

I see it as another sign of the incestuous partnership that has developed between business and government...a partnership that was never intended by the constitution.


I am saying that this ïncestuous partnership" was intended by the founders and more specifically protections for it have been a part of Business and government from the very beginnings of this country. From the Whisky Tax and ensuing rebellion to the insider contracts that gave carte blanche and exploitive market controls to the overseers of Reservation Trading Posts. From oil to railroads we have never had a truly "Free Economy" and that is also a fact. It is just not a popular one.

It is true however that the issue isn't one sided and that there has also been great conflict that ensued from this "incestuous partnership".

Even the great Imperialist himself, Teddy Roosevelt turned traitor to his acknowleged class in order to break the monopolies and protect environmental concerns and at enourmous political cost to himself but he also prided himself on building the basis of the Military Industrial State with insider contracts granted to cronies for political payoffs. Back then this was considered Standard Operating Procedure.

#9 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 01 November 2002 - 05:27 AM

I love my country, I have and I will defend my country unto risk to my own life but I will not lie to do so or distort our history in order to gloss over the imperfections that so glaringly mark our progress. I am a patriot but I am not a nationalist. There is more to learn from the truth of our past then from the myths.

#10 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 01 November 2002 - 11:17 PM

Posted Image

I am whole heartedly AGAINST the trend but I have been a lone voice at times, and franlky for some time now it appears saying that FREE Speech isn't just for one group, it is for all groups and the Internet should be opened to all who want to participate isn't PC.


Lazarus Long,

Your position (as stated in the quote shown above) makes sense to me.

Am I missing something?

bob

#11 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 02 November 2002 - 12:00 AM

I love my country, I have and I will defend my country unto risk to my own life but I will not lie to do so or distort our history in order to gloss over the imperfections that so glaringly mark our progress. I am a patriot but I am not a nationalist. There is more to learn from the truth of our past then from the myths.


I agree. I am glad you clarified yourself.

I shoud clarify too. I should have said "...intended by the memetic structure of the constitution". Maybe then you wouldn't have assumed naivete on my part with regards to the intentions of some of the founders and the history of the U.S. I assume that most people here are well aware of the good and the bad of U.S. history...thanks for the reminder.


So to tie it in with the thread. Free speech (bill of rights) should extend to the internet. It should be fervently protected.

#12 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 02 November 2002 - 01:14 AM

Posted Image

Free speech (bill of rights) should extend to the internet. It should be fervently protected.


Mind,

I agree!

best regards,

bob

#13 Limitless

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 1

Posted 02 November 2002 - 07:12 AM

What's all the fuss about? The corporations are trying to take control, and governments are more than willing to let them do it -BIG surprise. [roll] If unlimited bandwidth can be created using fibre-optic technology, then of course it seems unfair to charge users of the most bandwidth anything extra. Fibre-optic technology has been doing relatively-poorly, unexpectedly, because companies are basically charging too much for a technology whose infrastructure is already in place. However, as we all know, people who use more bandwidth and/or view more content, are forced to pay more in other circles, such as cable & Satellite TV. It doesn't really cost any more for a cable company to connect a few more cables, but a larger cable-package is more about the rights-fees to the content these additional channels contain, not the physical cost & limitations of the delivery system.

My mention of television does not mean I necessarily agree with the complete privatization of the TV industry. Obviously, the airwaves wee once free-for-all. Cable TV was originally designed to improve reception, but there were other motives working, indeed. [angry] I will go on the record and say this: I completely disagree with the concept of charging people monthly rates for cable & satellite TV service, other than the raw equipment. People should have to buy their satellite dish and/or converter box and nothing more. Why? Because of the commercials, of course. TV content is indeed worth something, but if viewers are subjected to advertising as a way for the cable companies & TV stations to make big-time money, then this should be their only revenue source. People shouldn't have to pay to watch advertising. (As they don't with pay-per-view.) We're even seeing pay satellite radio services for cars. It's getting pretty funny. :D

When it comes to the internet, however, it is definitely a very different story. Freedom of expression is one thing, but there are other arguments. Do I want to have to pay for a specific internet service based directly on how much content I view, and/or bandwidth I use? Not really. However, freedom of expression only goes so far. Internet forums are a great example. While an online forum like the IMMORTLAITY INSTITUTE may be an exception, due to its uniqueness & small-following, -most people who contribute to online forums on various sites are basically giving away their ideas for ZERO COMPENSATION. This is hardly fair in most cases. I have chosen to participate in this particular forum, because the benefits of meeting intelligent people who share similar dreams & interests, while maintaining very unique opinions, far outweigh the downsides of giving away a few of my thoughts/ideas for free. In my opinion, Immortalists are not yet at a stage where they can be completely individual and/or isolationist. Quite simply-we need each other. We may always want each other, but for now-there are too few of us to not at least have some semblance of decorum among one another. Also, it is quite possible that the benefits of meeting other immortalists could also help the cause with major breakthroughs. When it comes to other forums (less relevant in the long term-i.e. sports sites, etc.), people basically give away their time, energy & ideas for absolutely no benefit. (Unless you consider winning temporary moral victories with anonymous posters a success, in the long-term.)

The internet may have been created with tax-payers money, but the individual sites on the web were not. While it would been incredibly annoying, inconvenient & disturbing to see things become more commercial, it is not a completely bad thing. People deserve to be compensated for their work, -don't tell me that advertising on most web sites is worth much money-because it isn't. Most people don't pay attention to online-ads, after a few seconds. Sex sites are another story, of course [blush] I wonder how these possible restrictions would hurt/help them. [hmm] (Not that they don't already charge the sad people who frequent these sites, for the most part.) And then there were Casinos........to be continued! ;)

#14 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 02 November 2002 - 01:20 PM

A little understood fact occurred at the center of the debacle defining the demise of the Beast, Enron, it wasn't the "Beauty" of Government Protection that took down the monster it was its own avarice for total monopolistic control that became its undoing. The psychology of blind ambition took them into unchartered waters and they were drawn to the Siren's Song of Broadband control and dangerous treacherous waters..

They tried to manipulate and dominate that form of "Energy" with as much cavalier disregard for market rules and regulations as they were able to do in falsely creating the Electricity Shortage for California.

Let us say this time the fleets of the Armada were smashed on the rocks of its own course but these war fleets are being rebuilt and by Transnationalist Enrons around the world.

We as individuals, and small local organizations, are not capable of defending the interests of Free Access to information and Free Expression if we do not begin to define the "Limits of Power" these providers of service shall enjoy.

Also this isn't just a domestic market issue, it is a global one. The trends abroad are very negative in China, Russia, and elsewhere with regard to "Protections for Free Expression on the Internet" and it looks like there are many here in the industrialized West that envy and would like to emulate the trend.

Lastl, if we try to depend upon a mass upswelling of support we will fail because the media control already in place demonstrates that the majority of people are already numb from information overload. This is allowing the delivery of information to be further micromanaged with a propagandistic level never before imagined by the "powers that be". Göbbels envies this trend from the grave but feels quite vindicated by the current events.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users