PAUL, I wouldn't be privy to their editing policies, but have observed that some editors are much faster than others (in this).

I suspect that the trip wire for 'awaiting moderation' is mostly automatic, but the subsequent removal is not deterministic.

Something to do with number of hyperlinks in some of my posts, so I know keep clickable ones ≤ 2

RE: PaulMagillSmith December 25th, 2007 2:00 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

So, after almost two days (although posted) why is my post listed as "Your comment is awaiting moderation"

Did I touch a nerve? Did my posted links come too close to the truth?

Thanks, she, and I'm glad you got here to see what I was talking about. Is there ANYONE we can trust now?

Municipal broadband coverage on Broncaccio's "Now", unfortunately a little dated.

BTW (related but off topic), re this from Now re Ron Paul's internet campaign...I still suspect he's some kind of stealth-Pub-supported alt candidate for just in case [is his traffic getting meddled with?]...but I must say he's tending to convince me otherwise. He's sort of convincing me he believes the things he's saying; but I tend to think when the Fed-teat dries up the ensuing chaos will allow the present "security" paradigm to ramp up even more. Despite his strong arguments that the free market is the ox-we-should-not-muzzle...what about our gov as the ox? One would like to muzzle it, but is it really a pragmatic measure? To me it smacks of instant Road Warriorville. That's why I look at his romanticism and his supporters' romanticism as the most dangerous tragic flaw around. It could pan out one of those cathartic switcheroos like Jefferson advocated but...I'm very skeptical.

What I meant to ask yesterday at 1259 PM is...why is this assumption wrong: The stifling of anti-replication software seems to have smashed the music-CDs market. Wasn't this the intent?

It sure as heck managed to smash variety for blue collars for a nice long spell.

And I'm sorry for my typos.

Municipal broadband (a big outdoor Y-Fi paid for by tax payers) is the only thing that's sane. Here is a chrono search in Google Groups re same. Here is a slashdot article about it from 05. Or maybe give me CD text in green on black background from 100,000 amateur ISPs using absolute minimal baud.

IMO they can have rate increases for phone (of course municipal phone systems would be best); in fact such increases might preclude a lot of wrecks, annoying loud mouths, ditzy behaviors, and last but not least brain cancer. Disincentivise 50% of cell phone calls--that leaves a little room for municipal broadband.

Next question. There is altogether too much radiation out there serving no purpose but to make available absurd infomercials should anyone want to watch them. I'm sensing a connection somewhere between cable/phone companies and radio/television. While we're on the subject, what is it?

Sorry for the double post. I guess someone in cyberspace is asleep at the switch.

"Degrading VoIP transport will at least delay the day of reckoning when the telecommunications revenues dry up."

That makes sense to me and dovetails with the thoughts I posted Thurs. No matter what the ostensible US bizness problem in "focus" these days, it's hard to ignore the impression that they are sights are on savings in the homeland. Proceeds from outside are falling--tax preps in India and transcription in India pull proceeds over there (outstanding examples from "service" sector).

So, they implement "neat ideas" (2 with 1 stone) like PJD's 'Gold Standard' paradigm...in everything here. [Yes, it should be opposed, but how "socialist" were we ever?] Homeland customers will shell out more for less, cause no bucks are gonna come from anywhere else. Silver Standard and Brass Standard will actually gum up ONLY the works/traffic of those in philosophical/ideaological opposition. What little the revenue bases loses thereby...the powers will gain in slowing down the opposition. It's like buying the TV ad time that doesn't sell cars, but does sell associated items (in the ads) plus mindset for both.

I hate to think it, but those neat little I-Pods seem to have CRUSHED variety in music CDs. That Sony program that limited replications...what was wrong with that aspect of the software? Just that aspect I'm sayin? It could it seems to me have keep outta-control-file-sharing in check a little at least. I don't hear that argument at all. But the missing artists at Planet Music these days in some sense seem to make me think of one hellacious book burning. Think of the stuff that will never be heard cause folks aren't caught up yet, and please don't tell me about laptops all over Africa.

its not a matter of if but when.

The trick is to keep u$ online/interested in content so we can buy things, and at the same time to keep us from real news, blogs, intellectual pursuits.

Good luck, I had a rich life before the net and I will have one should the internet become "boring"

I see two major reasons that big telecom is pushing for net discrimination.

First, these guys are primarily telecommunications companies, at least today. The lion's share of their revenues is derived from telephone calls (of all kinds...business, consumer, mobile). But with a "good-enough" internet connection and decent transport parameters, these services can be provided cheaply or free over the internet (because of the vastly different business model for internet as opposed to telecom), as they currently are for millions of VoIP users of various flavors, including video and conferencing. Think of the implications of losing all that revenue, or even a substantial fraction of it. Degrading VoIP transport will at least delay the day of reckoning when the telecommunications revenues dry up. They will do anything to preserve this revenue base as long as they can.

Second, they want to control content, as demonstrated by the various censoring events in the article. You know, just in case someone tries to spill the beans...

In both cases, it is about the money. Always follow the money...

I think some people are missing the point here.

It is unavoidable that, like other public utilities, the physical infractructure of the internet will be owned and operated by only a few orgainzations. Their plan is to tie the level of service with the amount of money the user is willing to pay. MSN or Google's web pages will load instantly, lower budget operations, including Common Dreams and every other site like it, will load very slowly. Ultimately, alternate viewpoints will be denied service EVEN IF they can pay the full fees, as happens frequently nowadays when progressive organizations or unions try to buy ad space on TV or mainstream newspapers. And, they argue, why shouldn't they be able to do this? Giving better service to those that pay more, and choosing who you wish to do business with is what American Freedom and Free Enterprise is all about!

But, fortunately we stlll have some vestiges of the socialistic old days which to compare this reflexively-accepted wisdom:

Imagine that ordinary telephone service is provided at different levels. Pay $1000 a month-get an instant dial tone, pay 100 a month, wait 30 seconds or so for a dial tone, pay $20 a month, wait a half hour for an available dial tone. Now, imagine the same thing with electricity and water - purchase their "super-gold" service and get outages repaired in a few minutes, pay "basic" service a wait for weeks to get power back.

This is a pretty remarkable situation when you think of it. Why does a poor person working for minimum wage get a dial tone and the same quality of electric service as a billionaire does - at the same uniform low fee?

Does any other service (like say, healthcare here in the US) work this way? Well in the case of telephony, electric and water and gas service, it works this way ONLY because of government regualtion - specifically common-carrier laws and state public utility comission regulations.

What "net neutrality" is is simply the need to apply exactly the same laws applied to the internet as other utilities. But as John R just wrote it is doubly more important because the interent is the last remaining place where the publication of a diversity of viewpoints so necessary for real democracy is still possible.

Some here talk about how the telecoms are making claims that they can't defend based on the free market. The point is, the free market is really a joke. It is a PR tool, like "Support the troops" or "socialized medicine." They yell "let the free market work" when it's in their favor, but then they want to introduce artifice like tax breaks for oil exploration, government loan guarantees for nukuler development, and bailouts for huge infrastructure failures. Don't kid yourself, there is no free market, there are always carrots and sticks. And there should always be carrots and sticks. Things like the Sherman act and other anti-trust laws are absolutely needed; they are sticks that we whack the free market with because without them the free market would degrade to chaos. It would be rife with monopolies and collusion. Tax breaks to encourage new technological development is also needed. These are things that already are available and used often. The question is not if, but how are they used. This administration uses them to line pockets of friends; providing tax breaks for big oil and the rich, and loan guarantees to make nuclear development more appealing. Now, granted, nuclear development would be much cheaper if we didn't also make laws saying that it has to also be safe; I kind of think we need those laws. Of course, the regulations on industry are yet another outside force that affects the "free market."
All of that said, net neutrality is huge. It may be a short-lived issue, becoming moot when new technology is available to allow other pipes. But if the government controls the airwaves those pipes may need to be buried underground, in a euphemistic sense.
Net neutrality is the next big war in the us vs. the government. One thing I'll say, the conservatives always distrusted the government – I just wonder how it is that they now suddenly love it and I distrust it more than ever. The gun-toting right is so hung up on their right to bear arms, which is meant "in order to maintain a well-armed militia" not "in order to go kill deer." But they miss the point, the right to bear arms was meant as much as a way to defend ourselves FROM the government as it was to help defend the country. And now what good are firearms against our current military machine? The way to protect ourselves from a rogue government now is through information, exhange of ideas and communication. Gee, why would the government try to get involved in that? If the founders were alive today they would probably once again be considered insurgents.
I've heard fellow common-dreamers say that we are preaching to the choir when we post here. If we allow them to do away with net neutrality it will be more like yelling in a vacuum.

They would like to negate our right to freedom of assembly for how else could a revoloution get started? Communications technology is what binds us together in communities these days. One's physical location has become irrevelant( with all due apologies to Wendell Berry ). If they can use the Internet to manufacture consent to the same degree as they've done with TV, then they've once again marginalized liberalism and the possibility of meaningful social change.

Dennis Kucinich and five other dem presidential candidates spoke at a meeting in Des Moines and was available on internet video. Dennis's presentation was the only one to suffer any problems (similar to very, very long buffering delays and then loss of connection). Not once, but many times. The next day, however, I was able to see and hear it. It is just possible that so many people wanted to see and hear only Dennis that the system was overloaded, but you just have to wonder.

I can see nothing wrong with charging for kilobyte seconds, as we do for the telephone. All the billing systems should be in place anyway. Interfering with communications for anything other than judicially-approved reasons should be subject to very serious penalties.

Google is happy to provide "free" things like blog service, e-mail, etc. because the snoop on everything you're doing. (Keep in mind that Google Earth was originally an In-Q-Tel spook project).

Sites like Amazon are built on user-provided recommendations. If users can't express themselves in the marketplace, then a huge piece of Amazon dies.

It's likely that far-right lobbyists would get government to shut down public expression if they could, but it would have tremendous negative effect on business at this stage. We're pawns in a battle of kingdoms here. Autocrats vs. Plutocrats?

Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want immunity from Network Neutrality too?

Sometimes it seems like the foundation of big money in this country is nothing but wrong politics. That's what's tragic. Instead of wrong politics why don't they get into some exportable solar items? Communications you say? Internet? Ok, why can't Comcast do us all a favor and donate an interactive model of the US economy based on Stephen J. Rose's "The American Economy Poster"? They could play with it themselves after creating it, and consequently come to understand that beating a dead horse will not get it for ever.

GUESS WHAT PEOPLE ---

THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST SIGNIFICANT ISSUE BEFORE THE NATION AT THIS POINT IN OUR HISTORY.

THIS IS THE FUTURE OF FREE SPEECH, FREE PRESS, POLITICAL POWER AND FREEDOM ITSELF.

COMCAST AND OTHER CABLE TV COMPANIES HAVE ALREADY DEPLOYED THE NEXT GENERATION INTERNET - THEY CALL IT "DIGITAL CABLE" AND "ON DEMAND" - AND IT IS NOT FREE. THEY CONTROL THE CONTENT. WE ARE ALREADY LOSING THIS BATTLE.

THIS DWARFS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF EVEN THE FCC'S MONOPOLY RULES. IN THE LONG TERM, THIS IS WHAT WILL DETERMINE THE FATE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

The internet's "new media" are increasingly the media and are the future of media. Today, almost all Americans get their news and information primarily from television, but increasingly also from the internet. Internet "broadband" speeds and reliability have been deliberately set just below the threshold needed for continuous delivery of high-quality television signals. Cable TV companies make money selling the content, not the cable. We should never have broken out of the common carrier model which made the wire owner a carrier and not a provider of the signal which goes over the wire.

The ability of a corporation to control what programming, movies and information you have available to you or on what terms (how hard it is to find or how long you have to wait to get something if you know what it is you want and if they let you have it at all) is going to be the single most powerful tool for corporate manipulation of politics along with consumer choices, lifestyle and everything else in the coming decades. We now have a technology that can lead to a radical democratization - putting the power of choice into the hands of the people, but instead we are getting this technology in a form which preserves corporate control.

WHAT THEY REALLY INTEND TO DO - RESTRICT OUTPUT AND RAISE PRICE WITH CONTENT CONTROL

The examples above of interference with net neutrality indeed constitute blatant control of specific content, but this is nothing compared to what they intend.

Their objective has been made clear in past pubic relation efforts to undermine net neutrality, which include:

1) Claims that an increasing volume of internet traffic will overwhelm the network with congestion and bottlenecks that can be controlled only by separating content into particular categories with different terms, conditions and prices.

2) Claims that the provision of broadband internet service by facility-based providers is "competitive".

3) Claims that common carriage rules carried over from traditional telephone networks, which constitute the fragile basis of current network neutrality, are quaint, outdated regulations and should not be enforced by the FCC.

All three reasons have been used falsely to justify the abandonment of net neutrality.

Some errors in these claims are obvious on their face. For example, if the market was "competitive", why would increased traffic be a problem? Isn't that exactly what competitive markets do, accomodate more (or less) customers accordingly, whether by expansion of supply from existing providers or the entry of new providers?

Futher, if anything, exanding capacity for increased traffic should reduce unit cost in a declining cost network, not increase it.

But this is not what these "competitors" have in mind because they're not real competitors. They're either a landline monopoly or duopoly in most areas.

Instead, they intend to separate content and volume into different categories such as "digital movies a la road hogs" and "fast lanes a la multiple tiers of broadband speed".

The objective is the same of a typical monopolist - to extract more revenue and profit from customers, in this case by degrading the service the way cable tv degrades basic channels to force users into higher-price packages. The highest price "everything package" would be what most users get today, but at much higher prices.

There are reasonable ways to accomodate growing traffic and assess charges that would maintain net neutrality, such as changing the flat monthly rate, using time-of-use rates for peak traffic or usage charges on kilo-bytes and kilo-byte seconds. But these options rarely appear in the propaganda designed to undermine net neutrality.

Particularly offensive is the open, public threats that if net neutrality is not abandoned, the network will not be expanded and maintenanced to accomodate growing traffic. Really? So they're going to start cutting off customers and refusing new ones?

Well, in that case, it's time to do some investigations by the local jurisdictions that granted the franchise license to operate the company, the state public utility commission, the Federal Communication Commission and the Federal Trade Commission ...

... after Bush leaves of course, who has no problem allowing those corporations who control the last bastion of unfettered free speech to threaten its public customers as hostages, holding them for the ransom of breaking up net neutrality and throwing it onto the trasheap of other civil liberties.

wireless access will have to be established worldwide like ham radio, and the malicious thugs will have some new streets to run down with their sticks and stones - weapons of choice for the coming wars in the next millennia!

I'll be generating my own electricity to make it happen!

And we can drop their services more rapidly once we have other options for getting digital content. Google makes way too much money from the millions of websites that would be cut off by the bigh telecom companies. Google and other tech companies are working on ways to get digital content into our homes without needing to go through the one cable that we are hooked to. Wi-Max is one option that may boost wi-fi signals enough to cover entire cities. We need to keep network neutrality as long as we only have one monopoly cable option, but we also need to work on ways to get out digital content without going through the expensive monopoly cable and phone companies. I can't wait for the day when our televisions converge with the internet so we can watch video, news, and movies from any website instead of only being able to select from a cable lineup that is owned and controlled by five large corporations and distributed by one large monopoly cable company. That day is coming and we need to demand that it comes sooner.

I've already cancelled my cable service and now get most of my news and information from the internet. My only problem now is that my internet service comes through the cable line and they keep rising the prices. I plead with all technical people to work on solutions to allow people to get digital content without going through the monopoly cable lines.

"As consumers, investors and citizens, we have a right to know."

And as consumers, we have a right to drop their services.

hope is a thing with feathers?