Log off the Internet Day
Log off the Internet Day
Does anyone else agree about people taking one day a year and spending the entire day offlline? www.logofftheinternetday.info
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
diane o'thirst
- Posts: 2092
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 5:04 pm
- Location: Eugene, OR
- Contact:
Well, that Saturday I'm going to be up in Portland for a big regional horse show and won't have Internet access. So...yeah, sure, let's do it
[url=http://tinyurl.com/245sagf][img]http://tinyurl.com/2bbr28j/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/23753ws][img]http://tinyurl.com/2auqebj/.gif[/img][/url][url=http://tinyurl.com/m4y82q][img]http://tinyurl.com/l56rdn/.gif[/img][/url]
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
your local telecom is trying to do that for you..... except for more than a day....
Bill would profoundly change the Internet
David Lazarus
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
•
Lawmakers in Congress are scheduled to vote today on a landmark bill that consumer advocates and some of the biggest names in the tech world say would change the Internet as we know it, creating fast lanes and slow lanes for Web access.
The issue of so-called net neutrality, as in network neutrality, is at the heart of legislation that represents the most sweeping overhaul of telecom law since the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The question is whether network providers like AT&T and Verizon should have the ability to charge some Web sites fees for faster access speeds -- and whether such a two-tier system inherently discriminates against any site that doesn't pony up extra cash.
It also has broader ramifications as the phone companies prepare to flood existing bandwidth with their own video services, potentially creating bottlenecks for other online content.
"The Internet could be fundamentally altered by this," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of Congress' leading authorities on telecom issues and a ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's telecom subcommittee.
"The more people learn about this, the more they'll understand we're heading toward a system of informational apartheid," he told me.
Markey said Republican backers of the legislation -- titled the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 -- are expected to prevail in today's subcommittee vote.
A vote by the full House is possible by June, and the Senate is likely to take up the matter shortly thereafter. The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee, has said he expects President Bush to sign it into law by the end of the year.
There are other components to the bill. One would allow phone companies to bypass municipal approvals when rolling out video services (an exemption not offered cable providers). Another would allow cities to develop local wireless networks without first getting the OK from state officials.
But it's net neutrality that could end up having the most profound impact on the millions of people for whom the Internet has become a core part of their daily lives.
"The Internet has always been open and operated on a best-effort basis," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a Washington digital-rights group. "That means no one's messing with all the bits. Everyone's bits get the same treatment.
"When the broadband provider inserts himself in the middle of this system, which is what this bill would allow, the provider becomes Internet God. He can determine which bits get priority and which ones don't."
It's not as though an entirely new (and faster) network will be built for well-heeled Web sites. Rather, the existing network will remain, but telecom providers will have the ability to determine which transmissions get where they're going more quickly and securely.
Seeking higher prices
The phone companies argue that they need to charge higher prices to companies that require more-reliable networks, or that are transferring unusually large files to customers, such as online movies.
"Our industry has stated that it will not block, impair or degrade consumer access to the Internet," Walter McCormick, head of the U.S. Telecom Association, testified before lawmakers last week.
Here's the problem: Let's say Amazon.com pays extra fees to have its site load faster on people's browsers. And let's say a smaller online bookstore can't afford the fees and thus its site loads more slowly.
Assuming book prices at both sites are comparable, which one will get more business over the long haul? Most likely, the one with better performance -- in this case, Amazon. The smaller upstart can't compete.
By the same token, would Google ever have caught on if it operated noticeably slower than other search engines? Would the next Google-to-be now being developed by some college student even have a shot if it can't afford toll charges for the Net's fast lane?
Warning about Internet
Last month, a consortium of some of the biggest names in the tech business submitted a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee warning that "the Internet is at risk of losing the openness that has made it an engine for phenomenal social and economic growth."
"Consumers in the marketplace, and not network operators, should decide what content and services succeed or fail," the letter said, adding that this "must be guaranteed by a meaningful and enforceable net neutrality requirement."
Companies submitting the letter included Amazon, eBay, Google, Microsoft, TiVo, Yahoo and dozens of other top tech outfits.
The legislation now before lawmakers has been stripped of more- stringent requirements submitted by Democratic politicians. The bill would allow the Federal Communications Commission to decide disputes about Web access only on a case-by-case basis, not as a matter of broad policy.
It would also prohibit the FCC from writing any new net-neutrality rules in the future.
Markey said the final draft of the bill is the result of aggressive lobbying by phone companies.
"This bill is of, for and by the Bells," he said. "It basically gives AT&T and Verizon everything they want."
The phone companies have responded to such criticism by repeatedly insisting that they have no intention of blocking access to any Web sites or worsening anyone's performance.
"AT&T will not block access to the public Internet or degrade service, period," Ed Whitacre, the company's chairman, told an industry conference in Las Vegas last week.
But he and other telecom execs also maintain that they see nothing wrong with some content providers paying a premium for reliable service -- and, by inference, for everyone else to accept less-than-optimal network reliability.
"If someone wants to transmit a high-quality service with no interruptions and 'guaranteed this, guaranteed that,' they should be willing to pay for that," Whitacre told an interviewer in January.
Google called freeloader
A few days later, a top Verizon exec said content providers like Google are freeloading off the phone companies' networks.
"The network builders are spending a fortune constructing and maintaining the networks that Google intends to ride on with nothing but cheap servers," John Thorne, a Verizon senior vice president, told an industry conference.
"It is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers," he said.
Representatives of AT&T and Verizon were unavailable to comment further.
First off, the phone companies don't own the Internet. Without all that content on the Web, all they'd have is a bunch of wires awaiting phone calls (and no steady profits from monthly DSL charges).
Moreover, net neutrality has never been about blocking people from certain sites or services -- that's a red herring.
Net neutrality is about ensuring that all denizens of cyberspace have access to the same thoroughfares, and not relegating some content to country lanes while preferred data zips along the turnpike.
It's about ensuring that no sites or services are discriminated against -- by providers or consumers -- simply because they can't afford special treatment.
Sohn at Public Knowledge said the Internet's growing pains could be solved by the phone companies increasing broadband capacity, creating room for their new video services and everything else that traverses the electronic ether.
"But if they build bigger pipes, nobody would pay extra for faster access," she observed. "With bigger pipes, every site has faster access. The providers have no incentive to build out their networks."
And so we approach an era of two-tier Net access -- high-speed haves and have-nots.
"The Internet isn't the be-all, end-all of everything," Sohn said. "But it is the most democratic medium the world has ever known. Everyone has an equal voice.
"That's about to change."
David Lazarus' column appears Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Send tips or feedback to [email protected].
Page C - 1
Bill would profoundly change the Internet
David Lazarus
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
•
Lawmakers in Congress are scheduled to vote today on a landmark bill that consumer advocates and some of the biggest names in the tech world say would change the Internet as we know it, creating fast lanes and slow lanes for Web access.
The issue of so-called net neutrality, as in network neutrality, is at the heart of legislation that represents the most sweeping overhaul of telecom law since the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The question is whether network providers like AT&T and Verizon should have the ability to charge some Web sites fees for faster access speeds -- and whether such a two-tier system inherently discriminates against any site that doesn't pony up extra cash.
It also has broader ramifications as the phone companies prepare to flood existing bandwidth with their own video services, potentially creating bottlenecks for other online content.
"The Internet could be fundamentally altered by this," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of Congress' leading authorities on telecom issues and a ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's telecom subcommittee.
"The more people learn about this, the more they'll understand we're heading toward a system of informational apartheid," he told me.
Markey said Republican backers of the legislation -- titled the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 -- are expected to prevail in today's subcommittee vote.
A vote by the full House is possible by June, and the Senate is likely to take up the matter shortly thereafter. The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee, has said he expects President Bush to sign it into law by the end of the year.
There are other components to the bill. One would allow phone companies to bypass municipal approvals when rolling out video services (an exemption not offered cable providers). Another would allow cities to develop local wireless networks without first getting the OK from state officials.
But it's net neutrality that could end up having the most profound impact on the millions of people for whom the Internet has become a core part of their daily lives.
"The Internet has always been open and operated on a best-effort basis," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a Washington digital-rights group. "That means no one's messing with all the bits. Everyone's bits get the same treatment.
"When the broadband provider inserts himself in the middle of this system, which is what this bill would allow, the provider becomes Internet God. He can determine which bits get priority and which ones don't."
It's not as though an entirely new (and faster) network will be built for well-heeled Web sites. Rather, the existing network will remain, but telecom providers will have the ability to determine which transmissions get where they're going more quickly and securely.
Seeking higher prices
The phone companies argue that they need to charge higher prices to companies that require more-reliable networks, or that are transferring unusually large files to customers, such as online movies.
"Our industry has stated that it will not block, impair or degrade consumer access to the Internet," Walter McCormick, head of the U.S. Telecom Association, testified before lawmakers last week.
Here's the problem: Let's say Amazon.com pays extra fees to have its site load faster on people's browsers. And let's say a smaller online bookstore can't afford the fees and thus its site loads more slowly.
Assuming book prices at both sites are comparable, which one will get more business over the long haul? Most likely, the one with better performance -- in this case, Amazon. The smaller upstart can't compete.
By the same token, would Google ever have caught on if it operated noticeably slower than other search engines? Would the next Google-to-be now being developed by some college student even have a shot if it can't afford toll charges for the Net's fast lane?
Warning about Internet
Last month, a consortium of some of the biggest names in the tech business submitted a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee warning that "the Internet is at risk of losing the openness that has made it an engine for phenomenal social and economic growth."
"Consumers in the marketplace, and not network operators, should decide what content and services succeed or fail," the letter said, adding that this "must be guaranteed by a meaningful and enforceable net neutrality requirement."
Companies submitting the letter included Amazon, eBay, Google, Microsoft, TiVo, Yahoo and dozens of other top tech outfits.
The legislation now before lawmakers has been stripped of more- stringent requirements submitted by Democratic politicians. The bill would allow the Federal Communications Commission to decide disputes about Web access only on a case-by-case basis, not as a matter of broad policy.
It would also prohibit the FCC from writing any new net-neutrality rules in the future.
Markey said the final draft of the bill is the result of aggressive lobbying by phone companies.
"This bill is of, for and by the Bells," he said. "It basically gives AT&T and Verizon everything they want."
The phone companies have responded to such criticism by repeatedly insisting that they have no intention of blocking access to any Web sites or worsening anyone's performance.
"AT&T will not block access to the public Internet or degrade service, period," Ed Whitacre, the company's chairman, told an industry conference in Las Vegas last week.
But he and other telecom execs also maintain that they see nothing wrong with some content providers paying a premium for reliable service -- and, by inference, for everyone else to accept less-than-optimal network reliability.
"If someone wants to transmit a high-quality service with no interruptions and 'guaranteed this, guaranteed that,' they should be willing to pay for that," Whitacre told an interviewer in January.
Google called freeloader
A few days later, a top Verizon exec said content providers like Google are freeloading off the phone companies' networks.
"The network builders are spending a fortune constructing and maintaining the networks that Google intends to ride on with nothing but cheap servers," John Thorne, a Verizon senior vice president, told an industry conference.
"It is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers," he said.
Representatives of AT&T and Verizon were unavailable to comment further.
First off, the phone companies don't own the Internet. Without all that content on the Web, all they'd have is a bunch of wires awaiting phone calls (and no steady profits from monthly DSL charges).
Moreover, net neutrality has never been about blocking people from certain sites or services -- that's a red herring.
Net neutrality is about ensuring that all denizens of cyberspace have access to the same thoroughfares, and not relegating some content to country lanes while preferred data zips along the turnpike.
It's about ensuring that no sites or services are discriminated against -- by providers or consumers -- simply because they can't afford special treatment.
Sohn at Public Knowledge said the Internet's growing pains could be solved by the phone companies increasing broadband capacity, creating room for their new video services and everything else that traverses the electronic ether.
"But if they build bigger pipes, nobody would pay extra for faster access," she observed. "With bigger pipes, every site has faster access. The providers have no incentive to build out their networks."
And so we approach an era of two-tier Net access -- high-speed haves and have-nots.
"The Internet isn't the be-all, end-all of everything," Sohn said. "But it is the most democratic medium the world has ever known. Everyone has an equal voice.
"That's about to change."
David Lazarus' column appears Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Send tips or feedback to [email protected].
Page C - 1
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Lawmakers in Congress are scheduled to vote today on a landmark bill that consumer advocates and some of the biggest names in the tech world say would change the Internet as we know it, creating fast lanes and slow lanes for Web access.
What are they doing? The internet has got that way already. It's called DSL, Cable, T1, T2, T3, E1 IPV6 and so on.
You get what you pay for already.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
Kinetic IV
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06
AT&T is trying to reinvent their monopoly. They've come pretty damn close to doing it...so it doesn't surprise me one damn bit to see AT&T and Verizon trying to pull this bandwidth restriction shit.
Of course it ain't gonna fly, there are alternatives. Innovation will rule the day and be the trump card that kicks AT&T and Verizon's lethargic asses. Watch and see. CTIA is happening this week in Vegas and already there's new stuff being announced that's going to change the playing field. And there's even more stuff coming. Much more. In 3 years the whole industry will be vastly different than it is now. Take a snapshot of it and remember it....cause it's gonna be different.
And one last thing. It's all about the spectrum. Some folks have it. The ones that don't are going to have some very expensive regrets about not snapping up licenses when they had the chance.
Of course it ain't gonna fly, there are alternatives. Innovation will rule the day and be the trump card that kicks AT&T and Verizon's lethargic asses. Watch and see. CTIA is happening this week in Vegas and already there's new stuff being announced that's going to change the playing field. And there's even more stuff coming. Much more. In 3 years the whole industry will be vastly different than it is now. Take a snapshot of it and remember it....cause it's gonna be different.
And one last thing. It's all about the spectrum. Some folks have it. The ones that don't are going to have some very expensive regrets about not snapping up licenses when they had the chance.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
I agree with you Kinetic. I don't think it will fly. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and a bunch of other big players are opposed. How do like AT&T's condescending reference to Google's "cheap servers" thrown in there? What a bunch of fucks. The best of the hacks will pepper Verizon and AT&T too I would imagine, if the thing goes through. We don't need mind numbing dumb shit videos clogging the net. They have plenty of that crap elsewhere. Would still like to see more internet birds and so called IP baloons in the sky. The internet has become among other things the greatest voice for the people since the invention of the vocal cords....
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
Hey I like my morning read.....Its like my newspaper(as I dont subscribe, and rarely go to online version).
But yes there are days I dont go online, and....when Im on vacation.
I take all vacations very seriously. I even leave my cell phone, turned off and just check messages in case one of the kids broke thier arm.
I dont even bring the cell phone to playa, not even to leave in the car.
probly scared the damn thing is eventually gonna work out there.
I swear, If I see someone talking on a cell phone in a casual conversation going down the street at BM Im gonna find someones super soaker ! I am!
Its like seeing people with TV's when your out in the boondocks camping...whatever became of sitting round the fire with someone strumming a gui'tar and roasting marshmillows. People if ya wanna watch tv stay home!
Yes, I was shocked last yr when I found a campmate with a pc online!
Granted he was a virgin, and his wife was still in default, but I had to put it out of my mind. I just couldnt fathom, wanting to be in contact with the outside world. Thats my week n half. I leave all traces of worldly issues behind. Not that I have alot of those, well none really...but you know!
But yes there are days I dont go online, and....when Im on vacation.
I take all vacations very seriously. I even leave my cell phone, turned off and just check messages in case one of the kids broke thier arm.
I dont even bring the cell phone to playa, not even to leave in the car.
probly scared the damn thing is eventually gonna work out there.
I swear, If I see someone talking on a cell phone in a casual conversation going down the street at BM Im gonna find someones super soaker ! I am!
Its like seeing people with TV's when your out in the boondocks camping...whatever became of sitting round the fire with someone strumming a gui'tar and roasting marshmillows. People if ya wanna watch tv stay home!
Yes, I was shocked last yr when I found a campmate with a pc online!
Granted he was a virgin, and his wife was still in default, but I had to put it out of my mind. I just couldnt fathom, wanting to be in contact with the outside world. Thats my week n half. I leave all traces of worldly issues behind. Not that I have alot of those, well none really...but you know!
Names pinemom, but my friends call me "Piney".
-
Simon of the Playa
- Posts: 22827
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:25 pm
- Burning Since: 1996
- Camp Name: La Guilde des Hashischins
- Location: BRC, Nevada.
-
Ugly Dougly
- Posts: 17612
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:31 am
- Burning Since: 1996
- Location: เชียงใหม่
-
Box Burner
- Posts: 5803
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 2:33 am
- Location: Kentucky
Logoff the internet day
Logoff the internet day is the first saturday after the start of summer.
-
Captain Goddammit
- Posts: 8589
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:34 am
- Burning Since: 2000
- Camp Name: First Camp
- Location: Seattle, WA
When I got my first computer, I couldn't stay off it. My big brother, who'd been in the computer world much longer, told me I should spend at least one day a week without even turning it on, to stay "normal". I knew he was right when he said it.
Eventually the novelty of the 'net wore off, but I was glad I took some time for "real" things when I was still infatuated.
But having said that, I say taking ONE day a year is useless and stupid! Everyone knows they COULD do it, there's nothing to prove. It's not a disease, you can just press a button and it's gone.
Eventually the novelty of the 'net wore off, but I was glad I took some time for "real" things when I was still infatuated.
But having said that, I say taking ONE day a year is useless and stupid! Everyone knows they COULD do it, there's nothing to prove. It's not a disease, you can just press a button and it's gone.
GreyCoyote: "At this rate it wont be long before he is Admiral Fukkit."
-
Captain Goddammit
- Posts: 8589
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:34 am
- Burning Since: 2000
- Camp Name: First Camp
- Location: Seattle, WA
-
Apollonaris Zeus
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am
-
Ugly Dougly
- Posts: 17612
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:31 am
- Burning Since: 1996
- Location: เชียงใหม่