Does he look like any of these guys?
Posted on 04/04/2011 5:07:24 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web, has declared that content should be free and open to all Internet users and that any variation is a violation of the principle of network neutrality. The sentiment is quite different than his explanation of net neutrality some years back.
In my paper Last-Mile Dilemma, I noted that,
"Neutrality of the Internet is rather the idea that individuals on differing systems of connectivity and differing speeds of delivery should still have the ability to communicate with each other without applications or locations on the Internet being blocked or the traffic purposefully slowed. This is what Tim Berners-Lee was describing when he said, “If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level."
That seems to be a different sentiment than his new stance that the Internet should be "free" and that users should have open access to all types of content that exists on the net. The idea that the principle of net neutrality is free and open access to anything on the Internet is one more notch in the belt of an ever changing definition of what net neutrality is.
Tim Wu, the man who coined the term “Network Neutrality,” was previously the chair at Freepress, and whose favorite book is Atlas Shrugged The Master Switch, and is now a senior policy advisor at the Federal Trade Commission for consumer protection in mobile and Internet markets has recently added an addendum to his ever growing list of Internet rules as well. He recently was noted stating that the government should create “term limits” for successful technology and Internet companies. And in his comments he makes no bones about his ideology of state socialism commenting that if a “company has clearly shown that it’s corrupt” then the federal government should “just nationalize their source code.” Wu fails to explain who would be making these decisions or advocate the federal governments authority to carry out these decisions. Being a legal scholar it would seem that this would be an appropriate and rational step.
It's nothing but big government.
Google is falling right in line with the government. You wouldn’t believe the number of companies that are having trouble with google. They have made changes that most companies can’t or won’t comply with. Bing needs to really take off and make it easier for companies to be found.
What do you expect of effing Google?
These people were in bed with the Chicoms.
I have a Google phone. It is fine, but I think I am going to get away from them having this much access to my life when my renewal is up late this year. I am starting to get the willies in relation to their leadership.
And the are run by San Fransickness, ultra liberal techie nerds. Need we say any more?
You have got to wake up. Most people are aware of a certain part of “good detective work 101”, and I’m sure you are too. That is;
“If they keep changing their story, they are lying”.
=========Proponents of net neutrality regulation repeatedly proclaim the notion that regulation will improve and encourage innovation on the Internet. What we have however are two individuals who have now been caught saying two different things. Net neutrality regulation will encourage innovation, yet if the innovation is too good and uses a subscription wall then it is a violation or if it becomes too popular and ventures into a zone that, based on some arbitrary system, someone declares monopolistic and corrupt then it is in violation.
Clearly those are not safe market conditions that a company could work within taking risks and making investments, and it is certainly not a free market.==========
Whatever hatred you have for whatever ISP, or company, or whatever, you gotta put that aside.
These marxists want you hating this or that company enough for you to willingly give up your freedom.
Just read any history book, there are no depths to which they will not go.
I don’t care what you have to say to me in rebuttal, in the sense of you thinking my posting on all this is just in search of some gotcha moment.
Look at your kids. If you don’t have any, fine. Your nieces/nephews, or neighbor’s kids, coworkers’. Whatever it takes.
Don’t condemn them to marxism. We know where this road ends.
-—————Google is falling right in line with the government.-——————
“In their arrogance”
Corporations have often times thought they could get a leg up by merging with the law. But in the end, they got screwed by the revolutionaries too.
-————You wouldn’t believe the number of companies that are having trouble with google.-——————
Ohhhh, no trust me sir. I know. Not from personal experience mind you, but I’m aware of google’s progressive leaders. And I’m aware of their censorship moves. Google’s been a problem for a number of years. Search FR, some of it should be on here.
Google completely shat in their nest with me when they posted a graphic celebrating the birthday of PONG on their site on Memorial Day. Bing, on the other hand, posted a beautiful photo of the War Memorial at Normandy.
These piles of festering, maggot infested OOZE at Google are America and military hating liberals to the core.
I thought that was Algore before he saved the planet?
—————These people were in bed with the Chicoms.——————
Don’t forget the socialists, marxists, and american progressives who helped organize the egypt protests.
Google’s proud of all of it. here:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20032239-38.html
This is why they need net neutrality. Because me informing you of this isn’t neutral.(even if you already knew, a reminder is also unneutral)
Or in this case, net neutrality isn't one big astroturfed movement. It's a lot of different people who have different ideas of what it means. For me it means no change in policy, the net stays open as it was. This is as opposed to the completely fabricated, astroturfed, bought-and-paid-for anti neutrality movement.
Whatever hatred you have for whatever ISP, or company, or whatever, you gotta put that aside.
My ISP is great. I have absolutely no complaints about their service. All of the tools I have run to detect ISP interference in network traffic have come up clean with them. So you can scratch that for motivation. I operate on principle.
Just read any history book, there are no depths to which they will not go.
There are no depths to which large corporations will not go to retain their profits and power. Check out the East India Company, practically a government in their own right.
That’s typically worth a chuckle often times, but I can’t find much funny with this many marxists sharpening the long knives and licking their chops at the prospects of silencing our freedom and stealing people’s source code.
You and I are probably the same in that neither one of us has source code of our own, but you know:
First they came.............
I’m determined to not be alone in the end.
This was how they did it 450 years ago. The more things change, the more they stay the same...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662
Licensing of the Press Act 1662
The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 is an Act of the Parliament of England (14 Car. II. c. 33), long title “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses.” It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.
Press neutrality. Or, er....... fairness.
Don’t you know?
:-)
—————It’s a lot of different people who have different ideas of what it means.-————
Wrong. They only have different variations of the same goal.
They all want big government and you and I are the losers. Power.
Missing the ideas for the one singular goal would be a grave mistake.
————Check out the East India Company, practically a government in their own right.—————
Our founders turned to freedom and limited government.
They didn’t embrace totalitarianism.
When FDR took over, in 1933, they took a shot at total government control of radio broadcasting.
See page 92 and 93.
Telecommunications, mass media, and democracy: the battle for the control of broadcasting, 1928-1935.
By Robert Waterman McChesney
“Ownership of the facilities is the crux of the matter. Whoever controls facilities is bound to control their uses.”
The problem...and it is not internet...it is the ramps you use to get onto the internet.
Telephone?
Cable?
These are the squeeze points. This is where govt. puts its hands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.