http://media.publicknowledge.org/stevens-on-nn.mp3
Okay. Ted? I hope you're reading this. I hope that, while browsing the google internet, you come across this internet communication and stream it to your own personal internet that us consumers use. I'm speaking directly to you now. Shut up, and get off the senate. You know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the subject you are a chairman of, and the more you ramble on the more your ignorance is displayed for the entire technology community to gawk at. So just resign, and go home, now. This is not a request. You are making me, and my state, into a worldwide laughingstalk. Sincerely: Drew Mochak, 210 Charteris ST. Sitka, AK, 99835, telephone (907) 738-2492
The World to Senator Ted Stevens: STFU IDIOT
Moderators: AArdvark, Ice Cream Jonsey
-
Lysander
- Posts: 1693
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:39 pm
- Location: East Bay, California.
The World to Senator Ted Stevens: STFU IDIOT
paidforbythegivedrewbetterblowjobsfundandthelibertyconventionforastupidfreeamerica
-
Lysander
- Posts: 1693
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:39 pm
- Location: East Bay, California.
Normally I would laugh, hysterically laugh, and then cry at the stupidity clearly on display here, but since this is *my* senator talking I feel compelled by a greater force to go through this damn thing point by point and address it in the mad, mad hope that he'll actually read it and learn something. Hold me. This will get ugly.
"Now--we have consumers who use this internet, and we have commercial users who use this internet."
This, at the outset, basically makes no sense at all, and you have to listen later in the clip to figure out what he's talking about. What he should have said is that there are people who are using the internet for low-bandwidth activities like web browsing, email, and instnat messenger activities, and then there are those who are using it for more intensive things like movie downloading. The current phrase is wrong in a number of respects that I won't get into, but the point is that the number of what he calls "commercial users" is small--very, very, very small. If I understand him right, he's talking about people who are buying movies and downloading them over the internet. (I say movies because he does; obviously, well, obviously to anyone with a working brain, it's not just about movies but also podcasts, music, etc.; movies just get picked on because of the large filesizes.) Due to a number of factors, however, the number of people buying movies and then downloading it is in fact very, very small. Almost all of the high-bandwidth trafic is in fact, free trafic. I'll expound on that later.
"(a quote from the Tribune) Most of the companies who oppose net neutrality do so because they feel that the speed and capabilities of the internet are being improved on their backs."
So don't improve it then, and watch Google roll out free wireless for everyone. (I think it's a ridiculous possibility, myself, but I'm saying it because everyone else is.) I have zero sympathy for ISPs who don't wannt to roll out fiber because it's too expensive. They're already giving us ridiculously high prices on bandwidth (Well, GCI is at any rate), so yes, they can afford the goddamn fiberoptics. That's the beauty of Capitalism--if you don't want to do it, someone else will, and then make loads of money because they're the only one doing it so people have to use them to get their highspeed. Don't like it? Try and make a better network. The system works.
"There's one company, you can sign up and have a movie delivered to your house. Daily. [...] But you pay for that, right? That service is now gonna go through the internet, and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and order your movie and guess what, you can order ten of 'em, they're delivered to you, and the delivery charge is free. Right?"
Wrong. I'm assuming that he's talking about Netflics here, and if I'm wrong than it really doesn't matter because that's not the issue. You in fact do pay for "shipping". Every month you pay for shipping, in the form of the monthly subscription that you already pay to your ISP for ot access the internet. The internet is not already free, you dumbasses. You pay the ISP (too much, I reiterate) to get access to the internet that the traffic is delivered on. If you want your trafic delivered to you faster, you pay a higher price for faster internet service. It's a DIFFERENT business model, sure, but the business model EXISTS, and exists just fine thankyouverymuch.
"[an email] was sent by my staff at 10:00 in the morning on Friday, I got it [Tuesday?]! Why? Because it got tangled up with all of these other things that are going on over hte internet commercially!"
What I think his point is, if I can translate it from bumbling moron into English, is that emails are more important than movies so they should be given higher priority. Which is great, only throttling bit torrent won't make your email go any faster you freaking stupid monkey. The only emails that get slowed down are freemails like hotmail and yahoo, and that is because of the massive amount of people who use their servers to send mail all the time. If you want your email sent faster, get a better email address, jackass. Gmail is free, and there are plenty of paid email hosting services that move plenty fast. Yeah, paying extra for priority email, what an amazing concept that I just totally came up with two seconds ago oh wait no I didn't it's the way the internet has worked for ten years you RETARD!
"The people who support [net nutrality] are the people who want to use the internet for the end use of their profit, not the consumer."
Aaaah. And finally the crystalized view of his argument becomes clear to me, the shimmering cold lake on the horizon of the baron, featureless wasteland that represents the esteemed Senator Ted Stevens's intelligence. What he's saying is that content providers are making money off of the content that they are providing, without paying the ISP for the service of providing this content to the customers on that ISP. Meanwhile consumers--who don't need to use the internet for high bandwidth activities--are being disadvantaged because these evil corporationsTM are hogging all the bandwidth. It's a very well-worded argument that I have just extracted out of the almost-incoherent rambling of the esteemed Senator Ted Stevens; it is therefore a shame that it is completely wrong in almost every respect. Allow me to express this disappointment, in the form of heavy bricks. To your face. *WHAM!* *WHAM!* *WHAM!*
As I said above, you already pay ISPS for the privilage of using the internet. Similarly, the content providers pay the ISP for the privilage of connecting to the internet and using the iSP's webspace and bandwidth for the downloads. This is true, no matter who you are; if you're Google, you pay an ISP to get on the internet and if you are Alex McFlipworth from a filesharing network you pay an iSP for the same thing. Content providers are not getting a free ride on anything, and I wish that ISPs would stop pretending like they are. Because they are not. EVERYONE pays for bandwidth. Even freaking Microsoft. The hilarious thing about this is that even if this weren't true and huge companies were piggybacking on the internet just, I dont' know, because they're big and evil or something, you'd still be totally wrong. The consumers have spoken, sir, and they are overwhelmingly for net nutrality. I, for example, do not make a single cent of profit off the internet. As a matter of fact, since I pay for the internet--like everyone else--I make negative money off of it. Yet, I am still supporting net nutrality. Why? Because it's just common sense to do so and if you don't you're either stupid, or being slipped bribes by the telecomunications industry. So which is it, Mr. Ted Stevens?
"I think the result will be if we go your way instead of paying 30 dollars a month for broadband it will be 50 to 60, it will restrict it, I think that's why the world has turned against this. They have not done it."
You sir, are not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. Please do me a personal favor, and fatally injure yourself on a sharpened household implament. The world has not turned against this. The exact opposite is true, in fact, as the US is the only assbackwards place in the entire world suggesting this insane idea of 'net nutrality.' As for your claim that broadband prices will go up, you are wrong and they won't. Or if they will, it won't be because they have to, it will be because they want to play screw the consumer games. Er, more than they already are. I could mention that most people are already paying $50 for broadband, but that would be nitpicking. North Korea has speeds ten times ours for a fraction of our price, and they seem to be doing just fine. China may have loads of censoring, sure, but they also have cheaper and faster internet than us, and far, far more subscribers to deal with. This whole idea that ISPs can't guaranty the service they provide without charging us more for it is insulting horseshit.
"Imposing a heavy-handed regulation before there is a demonstrated need is wrong."
What do you call AOL's blocking of the EFF, Mr. Stevens? What do you call Comcast's "accidental" blocking of craigslist? How about their blocking of the standard ports of WinMX file sharing program? What about the countless reports of Bit Torrent and Skype trafic being filtered or choked by ISPs, despite their lying to the contrary? IF those aren't demonstrated needs I don't know what are.
"I don't have to have that kind of speed they're talking about [...], but people who are streaming 10, 12 movies at a time, or a whole book at a time, [...] those aren't you and me, those aren't the consumers, those are the providers! And those people are using the internet as a delivery service, rather than using it as the concept of communication."
Mr. Senator, whether you like it or not, the internet is a content delivery system. Whether that content is video, audio, or text, it is still content. Let me try and explain this to you. Conceptually, there is no difference between an email, a Wikipedia entry, or a book. There is no difference between a Skype call, and a podcast. How do you tell the difference between a textbook and a fiction book? Er, you charge someone out the ass for the textbook, okay, bad example. How do you tell the difference, conceptually, between the sixth Harry Potter book and the Encyclopedia Britanica? The content is vastly different, however the delivery system is still the same: words on paper. This is clear by the concept of a "web page." The web page has text on it, first and formost. However, imbeded in that web page can be all kinds of things. Anything from images, to java script code, to embedded audio, to movies. All of that can be put onto the same web page. And you access this web page exactly the same way you would access another, simpler, more "educational" web page. The only difference is the size. This is something you clearly do not understand because you are laboring under the delusion that downloading 12 movies is the same as downloading a book. 12 movies (assuming you're talking about Hollywood features) could range anywhere from 2 to 20 gigabytes. Downloading a book ranges from .1 to 2 megabytes. Do you know the difference between a megabyte and a gigabyte, Senator? I would guess from your previous rant that you do not. The difference, however, is even more academic than this. How is the internet supposed to know the difference between a 200-megabyte porn flick and a 200-megabyte news video? The delivery system is the same, the content's size is the same. The content's, well, content, is all that is different. And what you are asking is to have the internet just sort of magically know what is "important" and what is not. And that, with all due respect (which is nill, because you have political power and seemingly no guiding intellect on how to use it), is ludicrous.
"Maybe there is a place for the commercial net. But it's not using the place that the consumers use every day."
Senator Dorkass, the "internet consumers" are the same people who are downloading this "commercial" content. Furthermore, if we're just going to limmit this to a discussion of movies, because that's what you seem to want to do, then commercial content is in fact a very, very, very small percentage of the internet trafic. If you were to open this up to software you'd have a better argument what with the hundred-megabyte game patches Valve loves to push onto people, but you didn't, so I'm not. Due to the fact that movie studios have their heads up their fucking asses, the ability to legally download movies has been basically nonexistent up until around early this year. As a result, the people are not downloading these movies legally... they're downloading them illegally. My own personal opinion of the Kazaa file sharing network aside, if ISPs *really* wanted to take the load off, they would report the people downloading movies to the FBI and have them arrested. Thereby removing them from their network. Working with the existing laws to find a solution. But, mysteriously, they're not doing that. Instead, tehy're trying to institute more laws that directly benifit them and indirectly benefit everyone else in some strange way that nobody can actually explain. Like America doesn't need more stupid and pointless laws already. Why are they doing this? They want more money! Shocker! Rather like you, esteemed Senator Ted Stevens, who took $71,250 this election cycle in donations from these telcos wanting the bill to protect net nutrality shot down (source: www.opensecrets.org). Wouldn't you say that's a conflict of interest of some sort? (I could point out that the amount of financing for your reelection that is coming out of your several hundred thousand-dollar pockets is 0, but that would be mean.)
In conclusion, everything you have said on the subject of net nutrality shows an appalling lack of understanding of basic internet fundamentals. Appalling because you, being the chairman of the committee dealing with this issue, have a responsibility to educate yourself on simple concepts like "how the internet works." It is clear, however, that any attempts you may have made to do so have resulted in--forgive the regression into Dick Gebhart-speak--a miserable failure. Therefore I respectfully demand as a constituant of your district that you remove yourself from this position of trust and power until such time as you obtain the necessary requisit knowledge to debate the issue intelligently. If I said even half of what you said at my job, I would be fired, because in real jobs where real people actually really work for their living, it is necessary to have a clue what you're talking about in order to be a good worker. You do not, therefore, you are ill-suited for your 'job.' So, please, do us ALL a favor, and get out. Your constituants, your fellow members of congress, the constituents of other districts--in fact, everyone who is not a cable or telephone company shill, has spoken on this issue--and they are for net nutrality. How's about you start doing what you've been elected to this representative republic of ours for, and fucking represent the people of this country?
"Now--we have consumers who use this internet, and we have commercial users who use this internet."
This, at the outset, basically makes no sense at all, and you have to listen later in the clip to figure out what he's talking about. What he should have said is that there are people who are using the internet for low-bandwidth activities like web browsing, email, and instnat messenger activities, and then there are those who are using it for more intensive things like movie downloading. The current phrase is wrong in a number of respects that I won't get into, but the point is that the number of what he calls "commercial users" is small--very, very, very small. If I understand him right, he's talking about people who are buying movies and downloading them over the internet. (I say movies because he does; obviously, well, obviously to anyone with a working brain, it's not just about movies but also podcasts, music, etc.; movies just get picked on because of the large filesizes.) Due to a number of factors, however, the number of people buying movies and then downloading it is in fact very, very small. Almost all of the high-bandwidth trafic is in fact, free trafic. I'll expound on that later.
"(a quote from the Tribune) Most of the companies who oppose net neutrality do so because they feel that the speed and capabilities of the internet are being improved on their backs."
So don't improve it then, and watch Google roll out free wireless for everyone. (I think it's a ridiculous possibility, myself, but I'm saying it because everyone else is.) I have zero sympathy for ISPs who don't wannt to roll out fiber because it's too expensive. They're already giving us ridiculously high prices on bandwidth (Well, GCI is at any rate), so yes, they can afford the goddamn fiberoptics. That's the beauty of Capitalism--if you don't want to do it, someone else will, and then make loads of money because they're the only one doing it so people have to use them to get their highspeed. Don't like it? Try and make a better network. The system works.
"There's one company, you can sign up and have a movie delivered to your house. Daily. [...] But you pay for that, right? That service is now gonna go through the internet, and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and order your movie and guess what, you can order ten of 'em, they're delivered to you, and the delivery charge is free. Right?"
Wrong. I'm assuming that he's talking about Netflics here, and if I'm wrong than it really doesn't matter because that's not the issue. You in fact do pay for "shipping". Every month you pay for shipping, in the form of the monthly subscription that you already pay to your ISP for ot access the internet. The internet is not already free, you dumbasses. You pay the ISP (too much, I reiterate) to get access to the internet that the traffic is delivered on. If you want your trafic delivered to you faster, you pay a higher price for faster internet service. It's a DIFFERENT business model, sure, but the business model EXISTS, and exists just fine thankyouverymuch.
"[an email] was sent by my staff at 10:00 in the morning on Friday, I got it [Tuesday?]! Why? Because it got tangled up with all of these other things that are going on over hte internet commercially!"
What I think his point is, if I can translate it from bumbling moron into English, is that emails are more important than movies so they should be given higher priority. Which is great, only throttling bit torrent won't make your email go any faster you freaking stupid monkey. The only emails that get slowed down are freemails like hotmail and yahoo, and that is because of the massive amount of people who use their servers to send mail all the time. If you want your email sent faster, get a better email address, jackass. Gmail is free, and there are plenty of paid email hosting services that move plenty fast. Yeah, paying extra for priority email, what an amazing concept that I just totally came up with two seconds ago oh wait no I didn't it's the way the internet has worked for ten years you RETARD!
"The people who support [net nutrality] are the people who want to use the internet for the end use of their profit, not the consumer."
Aaaah. And finally the crystalized view of his argument becomes clear to me, the shimmering cold lake on the horizon of the baron, featureless wasteland that represents the esteemed Senator Ted Stevens's intelligence. What he's saying is that content providers are making money off of the content that they are providing, without paying the ISP for the service of providing this content to the customers on that ISP. Meanwhile consumers--who don't need to use the internet for high bandwidth activities--are being disadvantaged because these evil corporationsTM are hogging all the bandwidth. It's a very well-worded argument that I have just extracted out of the almost-incoherent rambling of the esteemed Senator Ted Stevens; it is therefore a shame that it is completely wrong in almost every respect. Allow me to express this disappointment, in the form of heavy bricks. To your face. *WHAM!* *WHAM!* *WHAM!*
As I said above, you already pay ISPS for the privilage of using the internet. Similarly, the content providers pay the ISP for the privilage of connecting to the internet and using the iSP's webspace and bandwidth for the downloads. This is true, no matter who you are; if you're Google, you pay an ISP to get on the internet and if you are Alex McFlipworth from a filesharing network you pay an iSP for the same thing. Content providers are not getting a free ride on anything, and I wish that ISPs would stop pretending like they are. Because they are not. EVERYONE pays for bandwidth. Even freaking Microsoft. The hilarious thing about this is that even if this weren't true and huge companies were piggybacking on the internet just, I dont' know, because they're big and evil or something, you'd still be totally wrong. The consumers have spoken, sir, and they are overwhelmingly for net nutrality. I, for example, do not make a single cent of profit off the internet. As a matter of fact, since I pay for the internet--like everyone else--I make negative money off of it. Yet, I am still supporting net nutrality. Why? Because it's just common sense to do so and if you don't you're either stupid, or being slipped bribes by the telecomunications industry. So which is it, Mr. Ted Stevens?
"I think the result will be if we go your way instead of paying 30 dollars a month for broadband it will be 50 to 60, it will restrict it, I think that's why the world has turned against this. They have not done it."
You sir, are not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. Please do me a personal favor, and fatally injure yourself on a sharpened household implament. The world has not turned against this. The exact opposite is true, in fact, as the US is the only assbackwards place in the entire world suggesting this insane idea of 'net nutrality.' As for your claim that broadband prices will go up, you are wrong and they won't. Or if they will, it won't be because they have to, it will be because they want to play screw the consumer games. Er, more than they already are. I could mention that most people are already paying $50 for broadband, but that would be nitpicking. North Korea has speeds ten times ours for a fraction of our price, and they seem to be doing just fine. China may have loads of censoring, sure, but they also have cheaper and faster internet than us, and far, far more subscribers to deal with. This whole idea that ISPs can't guaranty the service they provide without charging us more for it is insulting horseshit.
"Imposing a heavy-handed regulation before there is a demonstrated need is wrong."
What do you call AOL's blocking of the EFF, Mr. Stevens? What do you call Comcast's "accidental" blocking of craigslist? How about their blocking of the standard ports of WinMX file sharing program? What about the countless reports of Bit Torrent and Skype trafic being filtered or choked by ISPs, despite their lying to the contrary? IF those aren't demonstrated needs I don't know what are.
"I don't have to have that kind of speed they're talking about [...], but people who are streaming 10, 12 movies at a time, or a whole book at a time, [...] those aren't you and me, those aren't the consumers, those are the providers! And those people are using the internet as a delivery service, rather than using it as the concept of communication."
Mr. Senator, whether you like it or not, the internet is a content delivery system. Whether that content is video, audio, or text, it is still content. Let me try and explain this to you. Conceptually, there is no difference between an email, a Wikipedia entry, or a book. There is no difference between a Skype call, and a podcast. How do you tell the difference between a textbook and a fiction book? Er, you charge someone out the ass for the textbook, okay, bad example. How do you tell the difference, conceptually, between the sixth Harry Potter book and the Encyclopedia Britanica? The content is vastly different, however the delivery system is still the same: words on paper. This is clear by the concept of a "web page." The web page has text on it, first and formost. However, imbeded in that web page can be all kinds of things. Anything from images, to java script code, to embedded audio, to movies. All of that can be put onto the same web page. And you access this web page exactly the same way you would access another, simpler, more "educational" web page. The only difference is the size. This is something you clearly do not understand because you are laboring under the delusion that downloading 12 movies is the same as downloading a book. 12 movies (assuming you're talking about Hollywood features) could range anywhere from 2 to 20 gigabytes. Downloading a book ranges from .1 to 2 megabytes. Do you know the difference between a megabyte and a gigabyte, Senator? I would guess from your previous rant that you do not. The difference, however, is even more academic than this. How is the internet supposed to know the difference between a 200-megabyte porn flick and a 200-megabyte news video? The delivery system is the same, the content's size is the same. The content's, well, content, is all that is different. And what you are asking is to have the internet just sort of magically know what is "important" and what is not. And that, with all due respect (which is nill, because you have political power and seemingly no guiding intellect on how to use it), is ludicrous.
"Maybe there is a place for the commercial net. But it's not using the place that the consumers use every day."
Senator Dorkass, the "internet consumers" are the same people who are downloading this "commercial" content. Furthermore, if we're just going to limmit this to a discussion of movies, because that's what you seem to want to do, then commercial content is in fact a very, very, very small percentage of the internet trafic. If you were to open this up to software you'd have a better argument what with the hundred-megabyte game patches Valve loves to push onto people, but you didn't, so I'm not. Due to the fact that movie studios have their heads up their fucking asses, the ability to legally download movies has been basically nonexistent up until around early this year. As a result, the people are not downloading these movies legally... they're downloading them illegally. My own personal opinion of the Kazaa file sharing network aside, if ISPs *really* wanted to take the load off, they would report the people downloading movies to the FBI and have them arrested. Thereby removing them from their network. Working with the existing laws to find a solution. But, mysteriously, they're not doing that. Instead, tehy're trying to institute more laws that directly benifit them and indirectly benefit everyone else in some strange way that nobody can actually explain. Like America doesn't need more stupid and pointless laws already. Why are they doing this? They want more money! Shocker! Rather like you, esteemed Senator Ted Stevens, who took $71,250 this election cycle in donations from these telcos wanting the bill to protect net nutrality shot down (source: www.opensecrets.org). Wouldn't you say that's a conflict of interest of some sort? (I could point out that the amount of financing for your reelection that is coming out of your several hundred thousand-dollar pockets is 0, but that would be mean.)
In conclusion, everything you have said on the subject of net nutrality shows an appalling lack of understanding of basic internet fundamentals. Appalling because you, being the chairman of the committee dealing with this issue, have a responsibility to educate yourself on simple concepts like "how the internet works." It is clear, however, that any attempts you may have made to do so have resulted in--forgive the regression into Dick Gebhart-speak--a miserable failure. Therefore I respectfully demand as a constituant of your district that you remove yourself from this position of trust and power until such time as you obtain the necessary requisit knowledge to debate the issue intelligently. If I said even half of what you said at my job, I would be fired, because in real jobs where real people actually really work for their living, it is necessary to have a clue what you're talking about in order to be a good worker. You do not, therefore, you are ill-suited for your 'job.' So, please, do us ALL a favor, and get out. Your constituants, your fellow members of congress, the constituents of other districts--in fact, everyone who is not a cable or telephone company shill, has spoken on this issue--and they are for net nutrality. How's about you start doing what you've been elected to this representative republic of ours for, and fucking represent the people of this country?
paidforbythegivedrewbetterblowjobsfundandthelibertyconventionforastupidfreeamerica
-
Debaser
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 9:55 pm
- Location: Aurora, IL
I did not know about this. At this point, when they're refusing to cancel services for the dead, there's nothing I can't expect from AOL, and they're a dying company anyway, but seriously fuck Comcast so hard.Lysander wrote:What do you call AOL's blocking of the EFF, Mr. Stevens? What do you call Comcast's "accidental" blocking of craigslist?
I'm paying them about a hundred dollars a month for low grade cable and internet. I could get a much better deal on satellite except then Comcast would fuck me in the ass on internet to the tune of an extra 20 bucks a month. I'd switch to DSL and deal witht the lower speeds (I'm not on the internet much these days anyway), except that I don't have a landline.. I'm reaching the point where I'm debating getting a landline (I'm always forgetting to charge my cheap ass cellphone anyway), just so I can stop giving money to these cocksuckers.
-
Lysander
- Posts: 1693
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:39 pm
- Location: East Bay, California.
When I spoke of "other ISPs" blocking Skype? I was talking about ATNT. So you're still fucked.Debaser wrote:I'm reaching the point where I'm debating getting a landline (I'm always forgetting to charge my cheap ass cellphone anyway), just so I can stop giving money to these cocksuckers.
paidforbythegivedrewbetterblowjobsfundandthelibertyconventionforastupidfreeamerica
-
Draal
-
AArdvark
- Posts: 17735
- Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 6:12 pm
- Location: Rochester, NY
Besides the fact that Mr. Senator has diminished public speaking skills he makes no sense in his arguments. The audio clip wasn't some kind of fillibuster, was it? There's a definite backwoodsy vibe going on, like he was called upon to speak out, but had no understanding of the topic. How much is his salary again?
(After cursory reasearch in the Senator, I decided that he's too old to understand this newfangled fiber optic network thing, much less the way it would be used)
THE
JUST THE FACT, JACK
AARDVARK
(After cursory reasearch in the Senator, I decided that he's too old to understand this newfangled fiber optic network thing, much less the way it would be used)
THE
JUST THE FACT, JACK
AARDVARK
-
Lysander
- Posts: 1693
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:39 pm
- Location: East Bay, California.
Yeah, he's--for whatever reason--the chairmen on the senate subcommittee that's dealing with this issue of net neutrality. So we have to listen to what he thinks even if it's hopelessly ignorant and could set the world back forever.
paidforbythegivedrewbetterblowjobsfundandthelibertyconventionforastupidfreeamerica
-
Debaser
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 9:55 pm
- Location: Aurora, IL
Well, yeah, I kind of forgot AT&T merged with Yahoo, but there are other DSL companies out here, but it's all the same everywhere, I imagine. I've just had 10 years of this shit with Comcast, from their shitty tech support, to their ridiculous and deceptive pricing, to their bullying me to use their shitty cable service if I want a reasonably priced internet connection; sometimes I think it would just be nice to at least have someone else's dick up my ass for once, narmean? Hopefully, next time we move, it'll be somewhere I can get service from one of the smaller cable companies out here.Lysander wrote:When I spoke of "other ISPs" blocking Skype? I was talking about ATNT. So you're still fucked.
Which is the whole thing with net neutrality. These companies are always either the only game in town, or so close that it hardly matters. One day they will decide to charge $100 a month for choked bandwith that only works when visiting websites owned by sister companies and even then only when the modem is physically inserted up our anuses. Meanwhile, Congress will still wonder why we're all up in arms over this interweave thingamugug in letters they send home to their families via telegraph.
-
Ice Cream Jonsey
- Posts: 30067
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 2:44 pm
- Location: Colorado
- Contact:
-
Draal
Isn't Orrin "Lets Blow up dem heckers computers" Hatch on the DRM/Piracy/Internet Copyright sub-committee?
How many sixty and seventy year olds in Congress, who point to computers as "the wonders of the modern age", are deciding on the issues of what they think should or shouldn't be allowed on the internet?
So we say "Mr Senator; this box allows all information (movies, music, books, EVERYTHING) to be available in an infinite amount" and then they are supperpose to care to even try wrapping their minds around that?
Who has ever said that once the idea of the internet hit Government of any sort, the system itself wasn't fucked?
How many sixty and seventy year olds in Congress, who point to computers as "the wonders of the modern age", are deciding on the issues of what they think should or shouldn't be allowed on the internet?
So we say "Mr Senator; this box allows all information (movies, music, books, EVERYTHING) to be available in an infinite amount" and then they are supperpose to care to even try wrapping their minds around that?
Who has ever said that once the idea of the internet hit Government of any sort, the system itself wasn't fucked?
-
Ice Cream Jonsey
- Posts: 30067
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 2:44 pm
- Location: Colorado
- Contact:
It's amazing there hasn't been an actual attempt at a revolution yet. You know who's going to come off better in the next 100 years? Timothy McVeigh. I'm not saying he wasn't a crazy, stupid motherfucker, but in the coming century when more people decide they've had enough from the government and decide to try to blow it up McVeigh is going to get a teeny bit of more sympathy from the public at large.
On the flip side, I believe George Steinbrenner gets looked at much worse in the next 100 years. Desperate historians are going to force-feed our children's children an allegory about how the innocence of baseball was ruined by one greedy fuck. Not that Steinbrenner is revered now or anything, but I think it becomes worse for him as horrible writers try to describe why America revolted.
On the flip side, I believe George Steinbrenner gets looked at much worse in the next 100 years. Desperate historians are going to force-feed our children's children an allegory about how the innocence of baseball was ruined by one greedy fuck. Not that Steinbrenner is revered now or anything, but I think it becomes worse for him as horrible writers try to describe why America revolted.
the dark and gritty...Ice Cream Jonsey!