http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester
I found this to be a very interesting read and would be extremely outraged if this sort of thing were ever launched. The thing that fired me up the most was the fact that the companies wanted "the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight". This to me is horrible because they could monitor everything you do and give you no privacy what so ever. I feel that as an american citizen our right to privacy has extended on to the internet as long as what we are doing is legal. By them privatizing the internet that right would be out the window.
I found this to be a very interesting read and would be extremely outraged if this sort of thing were ever launched. The thing that fired me up the most was the fact that the companies wanted "the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight". This to me is horrible because they could monitor everything you do and give you no privacy what so ever. I feel that as an american citizen our right to privacy has extended on to the internet as long as what we are doing is legal. By them privatizing the internet that right would be out the window.
I saw this on another forum I post on. seems pretty alarmist to me.
let's all move in together and create our own internet!
let's all move in together and create our own internet!
asemi: I've been all for that since the (joke) Internet3 in #bsd. It would work! Connect to each other via VPN and encrypt all data transfer.
Of course it's alarmist, though. I love this quote: As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
I thought we paid for internet usage, etc ... we're not using their pipes for free. We pay a monthly amount and those who use more bandwidth get charged more .
Of course it's alarmist, though. I love this quote: As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
I thought we paid for internet usage, etc ... we're not using their pipes for free. We pay a monthly amount and those who use more bandwidth get charged more .
yeah, someone mentioned the same thing on the other forum.
"It's the people getting the content who are PAYING YOU TO USE THE PIPES. This makes no sense. I think the keyword here is Vonage, because it cuts into AT&T's telephone revenues."
"It's the people getting the content who are PAYING YOU TO USE THE PIPES. This makes no sense. I think the keyword here is Vonage, because it cuts into AT&T's telephone revenues."
Oh no! COMPETITION?!!! =-O
Yeah, I think this ignores the whole idea of competition. Can't other firms come in and undermine monopolist ISP's? As long is the internet is defined by open standards, I don't think this could happen. Of course, government regulation could also screw it over.