Comments for Blog http://blog.openinternet.gov Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:01:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on Historical Contingency, Inevitability, and the Open Internet by Knox http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=274&cpage=1#comment-12145 Knox Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:01:46 +0000 http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=274#comment-12145 Very good point that decisions affect the future; that technology trends are not inevitable, but rather are shaped by public policy. The reference to "open internet" - the precepts of net neutrality are yesterday's issue, with a generation of public and competitive policy rendering this discussion moot. There is no prospect any longer of internet service providers - to use the example given - blocking an online message to a friend. What the FCC could do is to take a more forward-looking approach, and look at the scary and very real threat of applications providers - like search engines - using monopoly positions, private information garnered without consent from individuals, and profit motivations to discriminate against those of us who value the free Internet. The notion of companies like Google pushing to get regulatory leverage to further its highly profitable business model, without making any investment on its own, is the extreme example of chutzpah. Let's champion today's issue of "search neutrality." Very good point that decisions affect the future; that technology trends are not inevitable, but rather are shaped by public policy. The reference to “open internet” – the precepts of net neutrality are yesterday’s issue, with a generation of public and competitive policy rendering this discussion moot. There is no prospect any longer of internet service providers – to use the example given – blocking an online message to a friend. What the FCC could do is to take a more forward-looking approach, and look at the scary and very real threat of applications providers – like search engines – using monopoly positions, private information garnered without consent from individuals, and profit motivations to discriminate against those of us who value the free Internet. The notion of companies like Google pushing to get regulatory leverage to further its highly profitable business model, without making any investment on its own, is the extreme example of chutzpah. Let’s champion today’s issue of “search neutrality.”

]]> Comment on Join the Discussion by Guest http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1&cpage=155#comment-12144 Guest Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:59:03 +0000 http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1#comment-12144 If we want real competition, the proposed regulations don't cut it. They would make it so hard to be an Internet provider that no new ones would ever be started. We need different regulations that would help create competition. How about ones that stop the telephone and cable companies from locking other ISPs out of their local wires? Or ones that keep the telephone companies from charging other ISPs too much to connect them to the Internet backbone? If we want real competition, the proposed regulations don’t cut it. They would make it so hard to be an Internet provider that no new ones would ever be started. We need different regulations that would help create competition. How about ones that stop the telephone and cable companies from locking other ISPs out of their local wires? Or ones that keep the telephone companies from charging other ISPs too much to connect them to the Internet backbone?

]]> Comment on Join the Discussion by Guest http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1&cpage=155#comment-12143 Guest Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:51:19 +0000 http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1#comment-12143 ISPs will only have to alter service levels if regulations force them to raise prices or let bandwidth hogs clog their network. Both of which would happen if "network neutrality" rules are imposed. The proposed rules are not what is in place now, and they are not neutral. They favor big Internet content providers like Google, which has dozens of lobbyists and has given huge campaign contributions, at the expense of ISPs and of the public. Google already has shown that it has no ethics; it spies on Internet users, tracks where they go on the Net, reads their e-mail. We should not let its regulations be enacted. It would hurt everyone. ISPs will only have to alter service levels if regulations force them to raise prices or let bandwidth hogs clog their network. Both of which would happen if “network neutrality” rules are imposed. The proposed rules are not what is in place now, and they are not neutral. They favor big Internet content providers like Google, which has dozens of lobbyists and has given huge campaign contributions, at the expense of ISPs and of the public. Google already has shown that it has no ethics; it spies on Internet users, tracks where they go on the Net, reads their e-mail. We should not let its regulations be enacted. It would hurt everyone.

]]> Comment on Live Blogging from the “Innovation, Investment, and the Open Internet” Workshop by Brett Glass http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=255&cpage=1#comment-12142 Brett Glass Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:06:53 +0000 http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=255#comment-12142 Amy Tykeson's remarks hit the nail on the head. Of all the speakers, she was the only one who had actual hands-on experience in delivering broadband to customers. (Yes, the big guys -- AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time-Warner -- have been on various panels, but the representatives have always been lawyers, lobbyists, and executives -- folks who have likely never installed a Cat5 cable or answered a customer support call in their lives.) Where are the people who have "boots on the ground" experience in building and designing networks? In managing networks? In trying to get investors to fund a new technology, despite serious concerns that regulation might prevent it from being profitable? Instead, we have Barbara van Shewick telling scary bedtime stories about invented bogeymen that do not exist but "might" one day. Should this be the basis of our national policies? Amy Tykeson’s remarks hit the nail on the head. Of all the speakers, she was the only one who had actual hands-on experience in delivering broadband to customers. (Yes, the big guys — AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time-Warner — have been on various panels, but the representatives have always been lawyers, lobbyists, and executives — folks who have likely never installed a Cat5 cable or answered a customer support call in their lives.) Where are the people who have “boots on the ground” experience in building and designing networks? In managing networks? In trying to get investors to fund a new technology, despite serious concerns that regulation might prevent it from being profitable? Instead, we have Barbara van Shewick telling scary bedtime stories about invented bogeymen that do not exist but “might” one day. Should this be the basis of our national policies?

]]> Comment on OpenInternet.gov/blog by Guest http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=35&cpage=4#comment-12138 Guest Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:52:49 +0000 http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=35#comment-12138 Here is my concern: Yahoo Buzz is a comments/blog forum which is overwhelmingly ultra-conservative, oftentimes NeoNazi or Radical Zionist. Examples include calling for the assassination of the President numerous times, calling for the annihilation of all Muslims and even Nazi-style hate speech directed at the First Lady and the \First Children\. Yesterday several people expressed that they hope the President is assassinated like MLK was. When I challenge these comments, or when a comment is made about Israel's activities in Gaza, my comments are erased. I can see where other's have seen the comment and replied to it, but ALL of my comments are routinely erased. This is especially galling when I am replying to Nazi Hate speech with challenging statements of my own. Only Yahoo Buzz staff can erase a comment after the fact and I feel this is quite malicious and controlling, making the site a haven for NeoNazis. Here is my concern:
Yahoo Buzz is a comments/blog forum which is overwhelmingly ultra-conservative, oftentimes NeoNazi or Radical Zionist. Examples include calling for the assassination of the President numerous times, calling for the annihilation of all Muslims and even Nazi-style hate speech directed at the First Lady and the \First Children\. Yesterday several people expressed that they hope the President is assassinated like MLK was. When I challenge these comments, or when a comment is made about Israel’s activities in Gaza, my comments are erased. I can see where other’s have seen the comment and replied to it, but ALL of my comments are routinely erased. This is especially galling when I am replying to Nazi Hate speech with challenging statements of my own. Only Yahoo Buzz staff can erase a comment after the fact and I feel this is quite malicious and controlling, making the site a haven for NeoNazis.

]]> Comment on Live Blogging the “Speech & Democratic Engagement” Workshop by Justin http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=206&cpage=1#comment-12133 Justin Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:02:48 +0000 http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=206#comment-12133 It's absolutely ridiculous that you believe the government should have control over the internet. The internet won't become any more "open" by government regulation. It is a place where anybody can express their views no matter what they may be. I also noticed the link titled "Get Informed." I think becoming informed is a great idea and I would greatly suggest that anyone who believes government regulation will be better for any reason (other than controlling the free flow of information and opinion) to do so. However, definitely not on this website. It’s absolutely ridiculous that you believe the government should have control over the internet. The internet won’t become any more “open” by government regulation. It is a place where anybody can express their views no matter what they may be. I also noticed the link titled “Get Informed.” I think becoming informed is a great idea and I would greatly suggest that anyone who believes government regulation will be better for any reason (other than controlling the free flow of information and opinion) to do so. However, definitely not on this website.

]]> Comment on What the Open Internet Means for Democracy by Guest http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=200&cpage=1#comment-12132 Guest Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:41:17 +0000 http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=200#comment-12132 The government should NOT be in control of the internet. They control the public school system, social security, and the US post office. How's that working for them and the American people? Keep it a free market system please. The government should NOT be in control of the internet. They control the public school system, social security, and the US post office. How’s that working for them and the American people? Keep it a free market system please.

]]> Comment on Join the Discussion by Anonymous http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1&cpage=155#comment-12130 Anonymous Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:43:42 +0000 http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1#comment-12130 Right now to access the Internet is NOT Free and Open. I am a 73 years young Scientist 1. First one Must Pay a so-called Internet Provider, in my case Verizon, Not easy to do on Social Security, and 2. To Open a Site Under a Specific Name to Help Humanity, one Must Pay Web.com Hundreds of Dollars Annually. CAN You Explain How Can a Person like Myself access FREE & OPEN Internet in the True Sense of the Words without being Charged an Arm and a Leg in the process by Multiple Intermediaries for that Access? Your response will be appreciated. TY Right now to access the Internet is NOT Free and Open. I am a 73 years young Scientist 1. First one Must Pay a so-called Internet Provider, in my case Verizon, Not easy to do on Social Security, and 2. To Open a Site Under a Specific Name to Help Humanity, one Must Pay Web.com Hundreds of Dollars Annually. CAN You Explain How Can a Person like Myself access FREE & OPEN Internet in the True Sense of the Words without being Charged an Arm and a Leg in the process by Multiple Intermediaries for that Access? Your response will be appreciated. TY

]]> Comment on Live Blogging the Commission Meeting by Fred Bosick http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=75&cpage=3#comment-12085 Fred Bosick Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:29:09 +0000 http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=75#comment-12085 DO NOT give AT&T what they want! No "Voluntary Priority Access Deals". Do you know what "voluntary" turns into when there's only one carrier? It turns into "mandatory". BTW, how about separating content from transport? As in ComCast buying NBC. And doesn't the present AT&T actually violate the Consent Decree of 1984? You guys all make more money than I do. How about doing your jobs? Thank you. DO NOT give AT&T what they want! No “Voluntary Priority Access Deals”. Do you know what “voluntary” turns into when there’s only one carrier? It turns into “mandatory”. BTW, how about separating content from transport? As in ComCast buying NBC. And doesn’t the present AT&T actually violate the Consent Decree of 1984?

You guys all make more money than I do. How about doing your jobs?

Thank you.

]]> Comment on What the Open Internet Means for Democracy by Guest http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=200&cpage=1#comment-12074 Guest Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:29 +0000 http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=200#comment-12074 This issue also negatively impacts American union performers who work to create the very content that is enjoyed worldwide. These American actors, musicians and other performers rely on the royalties from films, tv shows, and music to support their professional careers and families, as well as receive health and retirement benefits through their unions. If telecom companies are not allowed to employ methods to stop illegal piracy of the very content created by these performers, it will have a very harmful effect on professional American performers and their ability to continue earning a livelihood from their work. Don't forget them in this discussion. This issue also negatively impacts American union performers who work to create the very content that is enjoyed worldwide. These American actors, musicians and other performers rely on the royalties from films, tv shows, and music to support their professional careers and families, as well as receive health and retirement benefits through their unions. If telecom companies are not allowed to employ methods to stop illegal piracy of the very content created by these performers, it will have a very harmful effect on professional American performers and their ability to continue earning a livelihood from their work. Don’t forget them in this discussion.

]]>