<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>EveryJoe &#187; censored</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.everyjoe.com/tag/censored/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.everyjoe.com</link>
	<description>Sports News - Tech Reviews - Entertainment - Life Tips for EveryJoe</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:43:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Net Neutrality Links 01-06-2008</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-01-06-2008-217/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-01-06-2008-217/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:15:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadband-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censored]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers-choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web Happenings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workboxers.com/2008/01/06/net-neutrality-links-01-06-2008/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Perhaps you don&#8217;t believe it is a First Amendment issue but I do. Make sure to read Constance Cumbey.
Couldn’t Help But Notice (123007)
By TBlumer
Google, with its transparently self-interested advocacy of “Net Neutrality,” is already engaging in rent-seeking and position-cementing behavior. Its (and Yahoo’s) willingness to sell out to the Chinese police state reveals the &#8230;
Another confused anti-Neutrality Op-Ed
An anti-Net Neutrality Op-Ed in today&#8217;s Seattle Times, Hysteria Makes for Bad Law, by information technology provider Avis Yates Rivers, is so riddled with omissions and sloppy logic, I do not know where to start taking it apart. &#8230;
The Year in First Amendment [...]<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-01-06-2008-217/">Net Neutrality Links 01-06-2008</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps you don&#8217;t believe it is a First Amendment issue but I do. Make sure to read Constance Cumbey.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/31/couldnt-help-but-notice-123007/" target="_blank">Couldn’t Help But Notice (123007)</a><br />
By TBlumer<br />
<em>Google, with its transparently self-interested advocacy of “Net Neutrality,” is already engaging in rent-seeking and position-cementing behavior. Its (and Yahoo’s) willingness to sell out to the Chinese police state reveals the </em>&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.personalbee.com/215/25518777" target="_blank">Another confused anti-Neutrality Op-Ed</a><br />
<em>An anti-Net Neutrality Op-Ed in today&#8217;s Seattle Times, <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004083048_broadband20.html" target="_blank">Hysteria Makes for Bad Law</a>, by information technology provider Avis Yates Rivers, is so riddled with omissions and sloppy logic, I do not know where to start taking it apart.</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.aclu.org/index.php?/archives/377-The-Year-in-First-Amendment-Rights-Victories.html" target="_blank">The Year in First Amendment Rights: Victories</a><br />
By blog@aclu.org (James Tucker, Policy Counsel, ACLU)<br />
<em> This week, I&#8217;ll be blogging in more detail about net neutrality; internet censorship; national security and free speech; television censorship; and media consolidation and free speech. We hope that 2008 will promise greater protections</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://villagegreen.edublogs.org/2008/01/01/what-will-2008-bring/" target="_blank">What Will 2008 Bring?</a><br />
By Matthew Woolums<br />
<em>I also think that Net Neutrality will be both more important, and more imperiled. Oh, and of course, something will come along that I didn’t expect, I probably won’t understand, and I’ll dismiss it as an unimportant passing fad,</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><span id="more-127145"></span></p>
<p><a href="http://tekel.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/heres-hoping-that-the-emotional-center-cannot-hold/" target="_blank">(Here’s Hoping That) The Emotional Center Cannot Hold</a><br />
By tekel<br />
<em>GE’s approach to running NBC news, and the general phenomenon of ratings-driven news, is the very best argument for why net neutrality is essential to the future of American democracy.</em></p>
<p><a href="http://cumbey.blogspot.com/2008/01/dorothy-margraf-has-critical-infomation.html" target="_blank">Dorothy Margraf has CRITICAL infomation for us</a><br />
By Constance Cumbey(Constance Cumbey)<br />
<em>If passed it will be another step toward creating an internet policing apparatus complete with watch-lists and user profiles and all the follies associated with the suppression of civil liberties online.If you thought net neutrality was</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.freepress.net/news/29266" target="_blank">How the Grinches Stole Net Neutrality</a><br />
<em>ISPs in the United States and Canada are trying to equate peer-to-peer file sharing with illegal content pirating in order to justify their violations of Net Neutrality. But their argument is just a clever smokescreen to mask their true</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/01/03/cnet-quizzes-the-presidential-candidates-on-technology/" target="_blank">CNet quizzes the Presidential candidates on technology</a><br />
By Martin<br />
<em> CNet’s Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache sent 10 technology-oriented questions to the candidates, discussing net neutrality, Internet taxation, REAL ID, wiretapping, and other issues, and CNet has published the answers as part of their</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/01/04/setting-the-stage-for-a-people-powered-web-in-2008/" target="_blank">Setting the Stage for a People-Powered Web in 2008</a><br />
By Timothy Karr<br />
<em>Hillary Clinton `pledged her support for Net Neutrality in January. In May, John Edwards called for true open access while standing alongside millions of activists who support Net Neutrality. Barack Obama&#8217;s unveiled a comprehensive open</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2243915,00.asp" target="_blank">Cisco Charts New Course</a><br />
eWeek &#8211; New York, NY<br />
<em>I&#8217;m thinking specifically about net neutrality. For me, the question with net neutrality is: What are we trying to accomplish? We&#8217;re trying to get broadband </em>&#8230;</p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-01-06-2008-217/">Net Neutrality Links 01-06-2008</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-01-06-2008-217/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Net Neutrality Links 12-30-2007</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-30-2007-217/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-30-2007-217/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:10:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadband-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censored]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers-choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web Happenings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workboxers.com/2007/12/30/net-neutrality-links-12-30-2007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stan Schroeder leads us off with a bit of a fantasy post containing;
A Web 2.0 Christmas Fairy Tale
By Stan Schroeder
Net neutrality is strictly adhered to except on BitTorrent Day, a special day in the year when corporate customers get their bandwidth reduced to let the BitTorrent users leech 20% more stuff. And finally, the increased income from &#8230;
Year in review: Quiet year for tech on Capitol Hill
by Anne Broach
It was also a quiet year for an issue that so dominated the political debate in 2006: Net neutrality. Just after Congress opened its new session, two senators reintroduced a 2006 bill [...]<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-30-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 12-30-2007</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stan Schroeder leads us off with a bit of a fantasy post containing;</p>
<p><a href="http://mashable.com/2007/12/24/a-web-20-christmas-fairy-tale/" target="_blank">A Web 2.0 Christmas Fairy Tale</a><br />
By Stan Schroeder<br />
<em>Net neutrality is strictly adhered to except on BitTorrent Day, a special day in the year when corporate customers get their bandwidth reduced to let the BitTorrent users leech 20% more stuff. And finally, the increased income from</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.news.com/Year-in-review-Quiet-year-for-tech-on-Capitol-Hill/2009-1028_3-6223188.html?part=rss&amp;tag=2547-1_3-0-20&amp;subj=news" target="_blank">Year in review: Quiet year for tech on Capitol Hill</a><br />
by Anne Broach<br />
<em>It was also a quiet year for an issue that so dominated the political debate in 2006: Net neutrality. Just after Congress opened its new session, two senators reintroduced a 2006 bill that would generally prohibit broadband operators from prioritizing Internet content, and House Democratic leaders predicted it would top their tech agenda this year. But no action has been taken on the Senate proposal; no counterpart bill has emerged in the House as of mid-December; and no congressional hearings were held, although thousands of comments on the topic poured into the Federal Communications Commission during the summer.</em></p>
<p><a href="http://medianation.blogspot.com/2007/12/cross-ownership-and-new-media.html" target="_blank">Cross-ownership and new media</a><br />
By Dan Kennedy<br />
<em>As long as we can preserve net neutrality, such a mediascape is almost certain to come into being. And, at that point, there will no longer be a rationale for regulating the media. For some 80 years now, the FCC has regulated the</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><span id="more-127136"></span></p>
<p><a href="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5640" target="_blank">(Over) Simplifying the Complex</a><br />
By Larry Downes<br />
<em>A few weeks ago, I published an op-ed opposing pending Net Neutrality legislation. The editorial appeared simultaneously on both CNet and ZDNet. Of course there are many in the technology community who disagree with me and who believe</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.flixya.com/post/kusum/86779/Satellite_Internet_Exchange:_Nayasat" target="_blank">Satellite Internet Exchange: Nayasat</a><br />
<em>The peering arrangement allows local ISPs to exchange traffic on a barter basis, rather than on a cash basis—net neutrality being the key. Such arrangements bypass ITU protocol, regarding revenue sharing and allow net lower cost to all</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/26/broadband-is-everywhere-in-taiwan-why-not-the-us/" target="_blank">Broadband is everywhere in Taiwan–why not the US?</a><br />
By Martin<br />
<em>GigaOm’s <a href="http://gigaom.com/2007/12/24/taiwan-has-broadband-everywhere/" target="_blank">Om Malik points</a> to a story detailing how broadband access is available for practically every city and community in Taiwan. This is a tremendous accomplishment for any country and one to be proud of, but it also draws more attention to the fact that the United States–supposedly the technological leader and innovator of the free world–is falling further and further behind in its adoption of broadband Internet services nationwide</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://squaringtheglobe.blogspot.com/2007/12/fixing-what-isnt-broken.html" target="_blank">Fixing What Isn&#8217;t Broken</a><br />
By Harry<br />
<em> She wants to end net neutrality and proposes pricing and policy changes by Internet Service providers (ISPs). In any other business model, growing to meet this demand would be easy.</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140727-c,industrynews/article.html" target="_blank">The Smartest, Dumbest Tech Moves of &#8216;07</a><br />
PC World &#8211; USA<br />
<em>&#8220;And messing with the protocol in the way Comcast did with forged TCP packets was a dumb move, especially when the net neutrality issue is dying down.&#8221;</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/and-so-this-was-christmas-by-eileen-fleming-vanunu/" target="_blank">And So This Was Christmas By Eileen Fleming (Vanunu)</a><br />
By dandelionsalad<br />
<em>Nor will it; as long as there is Net Neutrality and truth, justice and peace seekers. In an email received from Vanunu on December 26, 2007 he wrote:. Bad news, Dec. 25 th. The police come to the American Colony to arrest me.</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/12/black-blogging-year-in-review-we-did-it.html" target="_blank">&#8220;Black Blogging Year In Review: We Did It!&#8221; &#8211; - Yobachi</a><br />
By Francis L. Holland Blog<br />
<em>That’s why it’s so important that we FIGHT FOR NET NEUTRALITY! If IPOs or search engines can control what websites you can go to on their services, it’sa wrap. We’re back to the same thing because then they could block us out. The net neutrality thing is something that all bloggers from all walks should come together to fight for – liberal, conservative, moderate – black or white &#8211; socio-politically conscious or celebrity bloggers; we all have the same stake in fighting for this one. &#8230; </em></p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-30-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 12-30-2007</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-30-2007-217/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Net Neutrality Links 12-23-2007</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-23-2007-217/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-23-2007-217/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadband-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censored]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers-choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web Happenings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workboxers.com/2007/12/23/net-neutrality-links-12-23-2007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good grief! A new ridiculous demeaning term is coined, Telecom Trotskyite&#8230;
Striking writers in talks to launch Web start-ups
By The Home Office
That&#8217;s why we&#8217;re so strongly in favor of Net Neutrality &#8212; because without NN, these efforts will run into the same Big Media distribution roadblocks as television. The Writers strike has hastened that evolution, as this LA Times story &#8230;
T-Mobile Attacks Net Neutrality Unnecessarily: Twitter Problem Not Its Fault
Wired Blogs &#8211; USA
The argument T-Mobile&#8217;s serviceperson offers is useful because it outlines the straightforward, no-messing-around strategy that bandwidth providers have for killing net neutrality: block the customer,  then treat the [...]<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-23-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 12-23-2007</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good grief! A new ridiculous demeaning term is coined, Telecom Trotskyite&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://creativevoices.typepad.com/blog/2007/12/striking-writer.html" target="_blank">Striking writers in talks to launch Web start-ups</a><br />
By The Home Office<br />
<em>That&#8217;s why we&#8217;re so strongly in favor of Net Neutrality &#8212; because without NN, these efforts will run into the same Big Media distribution roadblocks as television. The Writers strike has hastened that evolution, as this LA Times story &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/12/t-mobile-attack.html" target="_blank">T-Mobile Attacks Net Neutrality Unnecessarily: Twitter Problem Not Its Fault</a><br />
Wired Blogs &#8211; USA<br />
<em>The argument T-Mobile&#8217;s serviceperson offers is useful because it outlines the straightforward, no-messing-around strategy that bandwidth providers have for killing net neutrality: block the customer,  then treat the backlash as a standard-issue legal grindhouse: terms of service, binding arbitration, and other legal minutiae will win the day. Its reps are already promulgating these canned arguments, even when they&#8217;re irrelevant to the problem at hand. &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/12/17/five-worse-telco-moments-of-2007/" target="_blank">Ten Worst Telco Moments of 2007</a><br />
By lerskine<br />
<em>In the last year, phone and cable companies have been throttling the free flow of information on the Internet and cell phones — giving us a glimpse of a world without Net Neutrality. A review of the ten worst telco moments of 2007 in &#8230;</em></p>
<p><span id="more-127129"></span></p>
<p><a href="http://slashdot.org/articles/07/12/18/1310220.shtml" target="_blank">Why the Coming Data Flood Won&#8217;t Drown the Internet</a><br />
Slashdot &#8211; USA<br />
<em>A closer look reveals that many of those raising the alarm about an exaflood are generally doing so to make the case against &#8216;Net neutrality regulation. &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.itworld.com/Man/2681/congress-slow-on-tech-issues-in-2007-071218/" target="_blank">Congress slow on tech issues in &#8216;07</a><br />
ITworld.com &#8211; Framingham,MA,USA<br />
<em>Net neutrality: Many consumer groups and Internet-based companies continued to call on Congress to pass a net neutrality law, which would prohibit broadband &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4023566&amp;page=1" target="_blank">TechCrunch Gets &#8216;08 Contenders to Come Clean on Net Neutrality, ID Theft</a><br />
ABC News &#8211; USA<br />
<em>TechCrunch, which is read by more than 400,000 people monthly according to Nielsen/NetRatings, will allow readers to vote on its site for a Republican and a Democratic presidential candidate based on the candidate&#8217;s stance on issues such as net neutrality and ID theft.</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_politicselectionscorruption.html#075148" target="_blank">Latest Pathetic Mud-Slinging Attempt Smears Ron Paul As &#8220;Zionist Shill&#8221;</a><br />
<em> The &#8220;everything&#8217;s a conspiracy crowd&#8221; just cannot temper their paranoia for long enough to accept the fact that, while we may not agree with the Congressman on every issue &#8211; such as net neutrality or what happened on 9/11, &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9835726-7.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=NewsBlog" target="_blank">New Net neutrality proposal planned for January</a><br />
By Anne Broache<br />
<em>The pro-Net neutrality lobby hasn&#8217;t seen much action on legislation billed as necessary to &#8220;save the Internet&#8221; this year. But a key congressional Democrat says to expect a new push in 2008. Rep. Edward Markey &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=fa6284fc-5917-4149-b3de-e28963aeb1ec&amp;k=44073" target="_blank">The Telecom Trotskyites</a><br />
Financial Post &#8211; Toronto,Ontario,Canada<br />
<em>Another fave topic for these laptop revolutionaries is &#8220;net neutrality.&#8221; The basic objective here is to turn the Internet and broadband into a wide-open &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004083050_openmic20.html" target="_blank">Network neutrality | Freedom of expression at risk</a><br />
Seattle Times &#8211; United States<br />
<em>Consumer groups are pushing for a net-neutrality law that bans ISPs from degrading content and charging extra for Web sites to load as fast as possible. &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1239" target="_blank">The “…and Technology” Debate</a><br />
By David Robinson<br />
<em>On net neutrality, to take another case, those who favor intervention tend to think that a bad outcome (with network balkanization and a drag on innovators) will occur under a laissez-faire regime. Those who oppose intervention see a &#8230; </em></p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-23-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 12-23-2007</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-23-2007-217/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Net Neutrality Links 12-16-2007</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-16-2007-217/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-16-2007-217/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadband-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censored]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers-choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web Happenings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workboxers.com/2007/12/16/net-neutrality-links-12-16-2007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I see my friend Mr. Cleland is up to his &#8220;normal&#8221; trick of attempting to diminish others to his benefit&#8230;
Wireless open access: happening or not?
Computerworld Australia &#8211; Australia
&#8220;Seems like carriers and content providers alike have been bitten by the open access bug. Big news recently was Verizon&#8217;s announcement that it plans to open up its wireless network to any device or application. And Google upped the ante by announcing its intention to bid on the available 700-MHz spectrum in upcoming auctions, a portion of which, thanks to Google&#8217;s lobbying efforts, is required to be open access as well.&#8221;
Engineers: P2P is [...]<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-16-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 12-16-2007</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see my friend Mr. Cleland is up to his &#8220;normal&#8221; trick of attempting to diminish others to his benefit&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1218994809" target="_blank">Wireless open access: happening or not?</a><br />
Computerworld Australia &#8211; Australia<br />
<em>&#8220;Seems like carriers and content providers alike have been bitten by the open access bug. Big news recently was Verizon&#8217;s announcement that it plans to open up its wireless network to any device or application. And Google upped the ante by announcing its intention to bid on the available 700-MHz spectrum in upcoming auctions, a portion of which, thanks to Google&#8217;s lobbying efforts, is required to be open access as well.&#8221;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.precursorblog.com/node/605" target="_blank">Engineers: P2P is not &#8220;fair&#8221; usage; Reverse Robin Hood: Bandwidth rich steal from bandwidth poor</a><br />
By Scott Cleland<br />
<em> To my delight, one of the technical issues they recently discussed has great import to net neutrality and the FreePress petition on Comcast&#8217;s reasonable network management. Kudos to Iljitsch van Beijnum who wrote &#8220;Growth of P2P leads &#8230;</em><br />
[<em>Of course relative bandwidth gluttons like Google, eBay and Moveon.org support net neutrality, its all about forcing the many to subsidize their high relative bandwidth usage.</em>] &#8211; (Oy Vey!)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/14272" target="_blank">RIAA, MPAA, on new &#8216;worst&#8217; list</a><br />
By Jon<br />
<em>And the issues which keep them in business, operating against the public interest, are &#8220;digital rights management and fair use, patent law, broadband speed and reach, wireless spectrum and network neutrality&#8221;. PC World&#8217;s Mark Sullivan, &#8230;</em></p>
<p><span id="more-127121"></span></p>
<p><a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/canadian-isps-p.html" target="_blank">In Test, Canadian ISP Splices Itself Into Google Homepage</a><br />
By Sarah Lai Stirland<br />
<em>A screen shot posted to the web over the weekend seems to show that Canada&#8217;s largest provider of high-speed internet access is exploring a controversial data substitution technique that lets it add its own content to the webpages customers visit. Expect this development to become Exhibit A in the case for net neutrality legislation.</em></p>
<p><a href="http://mashable.com/2007/12/11/rogers-not-net-neutral/" target="_blank">Can ISPs Overwrite Your Web Content?</a><br />
By Kristen Nicole<br />
<em>Part of net neutrality is the delivery of information as it&#8217;s meant to be; not imposed upon by the company that&#8217;s providing access to that information. It&#8217;s a big deal when an ISP provider feels the need to modify the content, &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.betanews.com/article/Canadian_ISP_flouts_net_neutrality_principles_again/1197397671" target="_blank">Canadian ISP flouts net neutrality principles again</a><br />
BetaNews &#8211; USA<br />
<em>By Tim Conneally, beta news Rogers Yahoo, which has repeatedly come under fire for traffic shaping, has now ventured even further away from neutral ground, &#8230;</em><br />
[<em>But previous controversy for the company came also in the name of bandwidth conservation. Rogers is now well-known for <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/rogers-fighting-bittorrent-by-throttling-all-encrypted-transfers/" target="_blank">throttling all encrypted traffic</a> to keep Usenet and BitTorrent downloaders from consuming more bandwidth than everyone else.</em>]</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/284761" target="_blank">Rogers website messages irk Google</a><br />
Toronto Star &#8211; Ontario, Canada<br />
<em>Rogers&#8217; experiment is being touted by some as more evidence of the need for legislation that enshrines the so-called principle of &#8220;Net neutrality,&#8221; which &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.freepress.net/news/28932" target="_blank">Net Neutrality and the History of Bainbridge Island Community Network</a><br />
<em>Comcast tried to eliminate a small community online information resource in Bainbridge Island, Wash. The story cuts to the heart of the Net Neutrality issue.</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.precursorblog.com/node/608" target="_blank">Super ZDNet piece opposing net neutrality &#8212; &#8220;Save Internet Freedom &#8211; - From Regulation</a><br />
By Scott Cleland<br />
<em> Larry Downes produced an outstanding analysis for ZDNet today which he entitled &#8220;Save Internet Freedom &#8212; From Regulation.&#8221; I strongly recommend it as it is one of the most cogent and persuasive pieces I have read in a long time on the &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=255" target="_blank">Saving Internet freedom &#8211; for users &#8211; from telcos</a><br />
ZDNet Blogs &#8211; USA<br />
<em>Larry Downes&#8217; arguments against net neutrality are button-pushing propaganda designed to inflame, not illuminate. I expect better from a University of &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=2877" target="_blank">Net Neutrality outrage: reports of T-Mobile blocking Twitter</a><br />
ZDNet &#8211; USA<br />
<em>I explained to the rep about Net Neutrality and, to be honest, she had been outraged from the start. She completely agreed with me that this was an example &#8230; </em></p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-16-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 12-16-2007</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-16-2007-217/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Graffiti</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/graffiti-217/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/graffiti-217/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censored]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers-choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homepage-hi-jacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rogers-Communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web Happenings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workboxers.com/2007/12/12/graffiti/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I see the well-known art form graffiti has made it to the Internet&#8230;
Or &#8211; to Google&#8217;s or your front door or &#8220;wall.&#8221;
That&#8217;s right, GRAFFITI. &#8220;A form of vandalism involving painted text or images in public places.&#8221;
VANDALISM &#8211; &#8220;Needless damage or destruction of property, usually someone else&#8217;s property or common or shared property.&#8221;
Now let us all imagine that internet graffiti gangs, otherwise known as ISP&#8217;s, are allowed to overwrite anybody&#8217;s web page that they choose to. Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. Then we can develop new employment opportunities on the Internet &#8211; web site scrubbers exactly like the city workers [...]<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/graffiti-217/">Graffiti</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see the well-known art form graffiti has <a href="http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000337.html" target="_blank">made it to the Internet</a>&#8230;</p>
<p>Or &#8211; <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/canadian-isps-p.html" target="_blank">to Google&#8217;s</a> or <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20071210/184436.shtml" target="_blank">your front door</a> or &#8220;wall.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s right, <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/graffiti" target="_blank">GRAFFITI</a>. <em><strong>&#8220;A form of vandalism involving painted text or images in public places.&#8221;</strong></em></p>
<p><a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vandalism" target="_blank">VANDALISM</a> &#8211; <em><strong>&#8220;Needless damage or destruction of property, usually someone else&#8217;s property or common or shared property.&#8221;</strong></em></p>
<p>Now let us all imagine that internet graffiti gangs, otherwise known as ISP&#8217;s, are allowed to overwrite anybody&#8217;s web page that they choose to. Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. Then we can develop new employment opportunities on the Internet &#8211; web site scrubbers exactly like the city workers in L.A. who go around scrubbing the walls of buildings in that city.</p>
<p><em><strong>&#8220;<a href="http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/284761" target="_blank">Some bloggers noted</a> the Rogers notice on Google&#8217;s search page seemed more like free advertising than a customer-service bulletin, since it suggested the user &#8220;upgrade to another level of service which provides higher usage limits and speeds by visiting rogers.com.&#8221;</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>Critics say Rogers&#8217; move, though perhaps well-intentioned, could set a dangerous precedent that says it&#8217;s okay for the companies that pipe the Internet into people&#8217;s homes and offices to exercise control over their subscribers&#8217; activity online.&#8221;</strong></em></p>
<p>As Mike says at Techdirt;</p>
<p><em><strong>&#8220;This is what leads to all those network neutrality debates, where the ISPs forget that they&#8217;re providing just a pipe and think that they are the most important part of the process and have the right to change how everything else works. This doesn&#8217;t mean they should be regulated &#8212; but it does mean that both users and service providers (such as Google) should make it abundantly clear to ISPs like Rogers that this will not be tolerated.&#8221;</strong></em></p>
<p>Of course, in the same manner as the real graffiti gangs, the ISP&#8217;s simply don&#8217;t give a damn&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001290.html" target="_blank">BTW Seth</a>, there was a time, eons ago, when most folks thought graffiti was just a harmless deal also.</p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/graffiti-217/">Graffiti</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/graffiti-217/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Net Neutrality Links 12-08-2007</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-08-2007-217/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-08-2007-217/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadband-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censored]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers-choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web Happenings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workboxers.com/2007/12/08/net-neutrality-links-12-08-2007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hmmm&#8230; yes, I&#8217;ve given my favorite obsessive, compulsive a bit of fair time &#8211; pay attention, analyze quickly, hit ignore.
Testing for Net Neutrality
By Joe Hodnicki
Law.com reports on the Electronic Frontier Foundation&#8217;s new software that can tell you whether your internet browsing issues are due to intentional ISP interference. More info on EFF&#8217;s Test Your ISP project here. The San Francisco-based &#8230;
Google&#8217;s not feeling the love from the state of California on net neutrality
By Scott Cleland
 Two prominent Californians that matter recently did not side with home state Google on Google&#8217;s pet policy crusade &#8212; net neutrality. Awwwww. I feel bad [...]<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-08-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 12-08-2007</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm&#8230; yes, I&#8217;ve given my favorite obsessive, compulsive a bit of fair time &#8211; pay attention, analyze quickly, hit ignore.</p>
<p><a href="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2007/12/testing-for-net.html" target="_blank">Testing for Net Neutrality</a><br />
By Joe Hodnicki<br />
<em>Law.com reports on the Electronic Frontier Foundation&#8217;s new software that can tell you whether your internet browsing issues are due to intentional ISP interference. More info on EFF&#8217;s Test Your ISP project here. The San Francisco-based</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.precursorblog.com/node/602" target="_blank">Google&#8217;s not feeling the love from the state of California on net neutrality</a><br />
By Scott Cleland<br />
<em> Two prominent Californians that matter recently did not side with home state Google on Google&#8217;s pet policy crusade &#8212; net neutrality. Awwwww. I feel bad for Google&#8230; Barrons reports in &#8220;Arnold drops net neutrality&#8221; that&#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://altsearchengines.com/2007/12/05/net-neutraity-wont-be-fooled-again/" target="_blank">Net Neutrality: &#8220;Won&#8217;t be fooled again!&#8221;</a><br />
By Charles Knight<br />
<em>The phone companies say &#8220;the sky is falling,&#8221; the Net is degrading. Actually, it&#8217;s getting better all the time! Net Neutrality means the same treatment of every &#8220;packet&#8221; of data regardless of who is sending it, why, or to whom.</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2007/12/06/google-is-bluffing-not-serious-about-buying-airwaves/" target="_blank">Google Is Bluffing &#8211; Not Serious About Buying Airwaves?</a><br />
By Ron Schenone<br />
<em>I Like This Google Rumor; Google &#8211; Writing The Rules For Its Own Net Neutrality; Google + Earthlink = GLink; Google &#8211; Adds Google Maps Australia. Google Confirms Intention to Bid in Wireless Airwaves Auction; TiVo Use Might End</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.tmcnet.com/news/2007/12/06/3146015.htm" target="_blank">(Internet Protocol + Ethernet Transport) x QoS &#8211; (The Public Internet / Net Neutrality) = Enterprise Peering</a><br />
TMCnet &#8211; USA<br />
<em>The Net Neutrality debate actually throws fuel on the fire of the Internet versus private IP networks. The concept of a virtual private network, or VPN,</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.timwu.org/log/archives/211" target="_blank">Book Deal &#8211; Net Neutrality</a><br />
By wu<br />
<em>Its the &#8220;Net Neutrality book,&#8221; roughly, but with much more to it than just the last 5 years. At its most ambitious its a book on the whole point of US Media &amp; Communications policy – There are many exciting things about Knopf: but one</em>&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.precursorblog.com/node/603" target="_blank">Great new analogy why Net neutrality is an irrational policy in a new The Hill editorial</a><br />
By Scott Cleland<br />
<em> Daniel Ballon who wrote a great editorial on net neutrality for The Hill newspaper: &#8220;Net neutrality punishes everyone for Comcast&#8217;s actions.&#8221; He recounts a great analogy about how &#8220;neutral&#8221; networks on Black Monday, the stock market</em>&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/home?wid=10&amp;func=viewSubmission&amp;sid=3075" target="_blank">Q &amp; A with Marvin Ammori, General Counsel of Free Press</a><br />
<em>Berkman Center intern Yvette Wohn recently caught up with Marvin, who shared his thoughts on media reform and regulation, net neutrality, and the future of the internet. Q. Why did you choose to work for Free Press?</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/columns/e3i1dd5aa717be94419c976f52fe6fe7b74" target="_blank">Reinforce digital levees before the Exaflood hits</a><br />
Hollywood Reporter &#8211; United States<br />
<em>Suddenly, the whole concept of net neutrality starts to seem like a bad idea. On a theoretical level, it seems unfair to penalize giants like Google just</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/251739.html" target="_blank">Telecom leader says government should avoid Web regulation</a><br />
Kentucky.com &#8211; Lexington,KY,USA<br />
<em>UStelecom CEO Walter B. McCormick Jr. described the idea of &#8220;net neutrality&#8221; &#8211; the principle that Internet traffic be treated equally by carriers &#8211; as a set </em>&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7116929.stm" target="_blank">Providers question &#8216;neutral net&#8217;</a><br />
BBC News &#8211; UK<br />
<em>&#8220;Net neutrality is an issue no ISP can escape. We&#8217;re convinced that demand for bandwidth driven by innovative applications will always outstrip the physical</em> &#8230;</p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-08-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 12-08-2007</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-08-2007-217/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Net Neutrality Links 12-01-2007</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-01-2007-217/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-01-2007-217/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadband-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censored]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers-choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web Happenings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workboxers.com/2007/12/01/net-neutrality-links-12-01-2007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am a proponent of Net Neutrality. Scott Cleland has an obvious, mentally debilitating obsession and should be ignored&#8230; (Just one man&#8217;s opinion)
UPDATED: Internet Overload by 2010: Who&#8217;s Behind The Boogie Man?
By dweb8231
 Below the fold, some very interesting details on who is behind this boondoggle, why it is a fraud,and why it could become a major weapon in the ongoing battle to eliminate net neutrality.
Net Neutrality, Good for Innovation?
By just an OldGuy (just an OldGuy)
 Kahn rejected the term &#8220;Net Neutrality&#8221;, calling it &#8220;a slogan&#8221;. He cautioned against dogmatic views of network architecture, saying the need for experimentation at [...]<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-01-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 12-01-2007</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a proponent of Net Neutrality. Scott Cleland has an obvious, mentally debilitating obsession and should be ignored&#8230; (Just one man&#8217;s opinion)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/25/124635/09" target="_blank">UPDATED: Internet Overload by 2010: Who&#8217;s Behind The Boogie Man?</a><br />
By dweb8231<br />
<em> Below the fold, some very interesting details on who is behind this boondoggle, why it is a fraud,and why it could become a major weapon in the ongoing battle to eliminate net neutrality.</em></p>
<p><a href="http://halfbytes.blogspot.com/2007/11/net-neutrality-good-for-innovation.html" target="_blank">Net Neutrality, Good for Innovation?</a><br />
By just an OldGuy (just an OldGuy)<br />
<em> Kahn rejected the term &#8220;Net Neutrality&#8221;, calling it &#8220;a slogan&#8221;. He cautioned against dogmatic views of network architecture, saying the need for experimentation at the edges shouldn&#8217;t come at the expense of improvements elsewhere in the</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1005731" target="_blank">Net Neutrality Squad</a><br />
Linux Journal &#8211; USA<br />
<em> The <a href="http://www.nnsquad.org/" target="_blank">Network Neutrality Squad</a> (nnsquad) is an open-membership, open-source effort, enlisting the Internet&#8217;s users to help keep the Internet&#8217;s operations fair</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119604772911603606.html?mod=googlenews_wsj" target="_blank">Maybe We Need Something Besides the Internet</a><br />
Wall Street Journal &#8211; USA<br />
<em> 21) reference to &#8220;the open access and Net neutrality canards.&#8221; Maybe plans to make the pipes &#8220;smart&#8221; will improve networked data services for consumers,</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fiberevolution.com/2007/11/arceps-views-on.html" target="_blank">ARCEP&#8217;s views on Net Neutrality</a><br />
By Benoît FELTEN<br />
<em> Mme Gauthey mentions Net Neutrality as a potential issue in France despite it being viewed as a US-centric issue so far. It&#8217;s actually becoming an issue here for two reasons: probable limitations and/or lack of facilities based</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.telco2.net/blog/2007/11/plusnet_we_traffic_shape_and_a_1.html" target="_blank">Plusnet: We traffic shape and are proud of it</a><br />
Telco 2.0<br />
<em>&#8220;Net Neutrality is an issue no ISP can escape. We&#8217;re convinced that demand for bandwidth driven by innovative applications will always outstrip the physical and economic supply of network. For that reason Net Neutrality is a pipe-dream</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7036.html" target="_blank">Edwards, Obama harness power of Internet</a><br />
Politico &#8211; Washington,DC,USA<br />
<em> He&#8217;s a vocal supporter of Net neutrality, to make sure Internet service providers can&#8217;t choke the vibrancy of innovation and collaboration the Net makes</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1284" target="_blank">Mark Cuban: Blocking and Discrimination OK, but not for HDNet</a><br />
By Gigi Sohn Public Knowledge<br />
<em> So I have been somewhat amused to see the reaction of Mark’s company, HDNet, after DIRECTV bumped his network from its cheaper tier of HDTV offerings to a more obscure and more expensive programming tier.</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9824161-7.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=NewsBlog" target="_blank">Net neutrality to get new life in Congress</a><br />
By Anne Broache<br />
<em> Just in time for presidential primary season, a key Democrat who championed Net neutrality laws during the last Congress is finally planning to try again. Rep. Edward Markey. (Credit: US House of Representatives)</em> &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/11/29/comcast-continues-to-block-and-dodge/" target="_blank">Comcast Continues to Block and Dodge</a><br />
By tkarr<br />
<em> EFF&#8217;s second report — released on Wednesday — confirms that the company is indeed meddling with our ability to connect and share information with one another — a gross violation of both the letter and spirit of Net Neutrality.</em> &#8230;</p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-01-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 12-01-2007</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-12-01-2007-217/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Net Neutrality Links 11-24-2007</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-11-24-2007-217/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-11-24-2007-217/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:41:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadband-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censored]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers-choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web Happenings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workboxers.com/2007/11/24/net-neutrality-links-11-24-2007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Love my Google Alerts!
Net Neutrality Links 11-24-2007 (Beware The Lies!)
Whose Web is it, anyway?
Rabble.ca &#8211; Montreal,QC,Canada
 Until about three weeks ago, net neutrality was a difficult issue to explain at a dinner party. It was even more of a struggle to get anybody worked up &#8230;
Kindle – Shape of the Web to Come?
By Tom Evslin
 If so, there are profound implications for web development (hint: develop apps that run in a browser), the Internet access business, and even Net Neutrality. There may even be a tie in with Amazon&#8217;s hosting business for such apps. Hmmm &#8230;
You&#8217;re Being Ripped Off
By kidcanuck
 [...]<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-11-24-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 11-24-2007</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love <a href="http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en" target="_blank">my Google Alerts</a>!</p>
<p><strong>Net Neutrality Links 11-24-2007</strong> (Beware The Lies!)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=64622" target="_blank">Whose Web is it, anyway?</a><br />
Rabble.ca &#8211; Montreal,QC,Canada<br />
<em> Until about three weeks ago, net neutrality was a difficult issue to explain at a dinner party. It was even more of a struggle to get anybody worked up &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://blog.tomevslin.com/2007/11/kindle-shape-of.html" target="_blank">Kindle – Shape of the Web to Come?</a><br />
By Tom Evslin<br />
<em> If so, there are profound implications for web development (hint: develop apps that run in a browser), the Internet access business, and even Net Neutrality. There may even be a tie in with Amazon&#8217;s hosting business for such apps. Hmmm &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://blackhole.xerces.com/showthread.php?t=9591" target="_blank">You&#8217;re Being Ripped Off</a><br />
By kidcanuck<br />
<em> The Ottawa Business Journal has a useful background article on content-based traffic throttling by Canadian ISPs. If you&#8217;ve heard of the fight for &#8220;Net Neutrality&#8221; and wondered what it was about, this issue is a key part of it.</em></p>
<p><a href="http://anzman.blogspot.com/2007/11/giant-global-graph-perspective-dialog.html" target="_blank">Giant Global Graph &#8211; Perspective, dialog, and potential</a><br />
By Charlie Anzman(Charlie Anzman)<br />
<em> Hopefully, a self imposed worldwide &#8216;police force&#8217;, rather than censorship, (A very fine line) while the maintaining the integrity of Net Neutrality. Impossible? Only the future will tell. (The FOAF is mentioned in the post).</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2007/11/of-blogs-ebooks.html" target="_blank">&#8220;Of Blogs, eBooks, and Broadband: Access to Digital Media as a &#8230;</a><br />
<em> Opponents of net neutrality requirements have opined that the First Amendment rights of corporate owners of telecommunications infrastructure should trump the first Amendment rights of individual speakers and users of telecommunications &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/22/2338227" target="_blank">Mark Cuban Calls on isps to Block P2P</a><br />
Slashdot &#8211; USA<br />
<em> The principle of net neutrality and regulations designed to support the neutrality of the Internet have been subject to fierce debate in various forums. &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://hedonisticpleasureseeker.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/the-news-we-choose/" target="_blank">The News We Choose</a><br />
By The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker<br />
<em> Fight for Net Neutrality! About 80% of us gets at least some news from the internet, and this has been screwing with the Nazis&#8217; ability to install the fourth Reich here on US soil. We&#8217;re too smart for them. We know too much, &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2007/11/23/opinion/doc47476e69c019f972666115.txt" target="_blank">Let&#8217;s avoid being caught by Net</a><br />
Journal Times &#8211; Racine,WI,USA<br />
<em> Talk about &#8220;net neutrality&#8221; has just made it outside geek culture, and it is intertwined with the capacity problem. Net neutrality means using law to ensure &#8230;</em></p>
<p><a href="http://markevanstech.com/2007/11/24/weekly-wrap-2/" target="_blank">Weekly Wrap</a><br />
By Mark Evans<br />
<em> The study, done by Nemertes Research, sounds like something those net neutrality-hating ISPs would have commissioned to encourage a new, multi-tier system where Web sites have to pay to be on the super highway. &#8230;</em></p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-11-24-2007-217/">Net Neutrality Links 11-24-2007</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/net-neutrality-links-11-24-2007-217/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Perfect Example &#8211; There Is No Competition!</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/a-perfect-example-there-is-no-competition-217/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/a-perfect-example-there-is-no-competition-217/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:31:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadband-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censored]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers-choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-communications-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Thoughts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workboxers.com/2007/10/02/a-perfect-example-there-is-no-competition/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A perfect example that there really isn&#8217;t any competition in the market!
Selecting just these two posts (there are thousands);
AT&#38;T threatens to disconnect subscribers who criticize the company
AT&#38;T vows to use Terms of Service for good, not censorship
Folks, is anyone paying attention? I mean really? Thankfully, there are people who now scan through their cable and phone bills and make these discoveries otherwise &#8220;they&#8217;d&#8221; sneak them past us.
Telecoms are denying service, censoring and now claiming the right to cancel for what? Bad conduct by you and I, that&#8217;s what &#8211; in their discretion!
Their discretionary powers are more than very disturbing, seems [...]<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/a-perfect-example-there-is-no-competition-217/">A Perfect Example &#8211; There Is No Competition!</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A perfect example that there really isn&#8217;t any competition in the market!</p>
<p>Selecting just these two posts (there are thousands);</p>
<p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070930-att-threatens-to-disconnect-subscribers-who-are-critical-of-the-company.html" target="_blank"><strong>AT&amp;T threatens to disconnect subscribers who criticize the company</strong></a></p>
<p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-att-vows-to-use-terms-of-service-for-good-not-censorship.html" target="_blank"><strong>AT&amp;T vows to use Terms of Service for good, not censorship</strong></a></p>
<p>Folks, is anyone paying attention? I mean really? Thankfully, there are people who now scan through their cable and phone bills and make these discoveries otherwise &#8220;they&#8217;d&#8221; sneak them past us.</p>
<p>Telecoms are denying service, censoring and now claiming the right to cancel for what? Bad conduct by you and I, that&#8217;s what &#8211; <em><strong>in their discretion!</strong></em></p>
<p>Their discretionary powers are more than very disturbing, seems to me they&#8217;re Communistic is the oldest sense of the Cold War!</p>
<p>How many times do we have to hear &#8220;whoops, we made a mistake.&#8221; Or &#8220;We swear we didn&#8217;t give the government that power or information.&#8221; Only to have it proven otherwise shortly thereafter&#8230;</p>
<p>But, the worst of all??? Which is why I ask the question &#8220;Is anyone paying attention?&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-127066"></span></p>
<p><strong>There is absolutely no way any of these companies could do this if they weren&#8217;t monopolies, if they didn&#8217;t hold all the power, if there was real competition!!!</strong></p>
<p>If AT&amp;T were afraid of  <em>The World&#8217;s Global and Most Elegant Telecom Co. Inc.</em> (made up name) spiriting away their customers do you believe they would put this type of threat in print? If Joe Consumer had an opportunity to go down the street to any one of a dozen or more local, viable, really competitive Telecoms, do you really believe AT&amp;T would write this for the world to see?</p>
<p>Shills like Scott Cleland can testify until they&#8217;re blue in the face about Google, meanwhile Verizon and AT&amp;T are making decisions about our rights based on their discretion and we have no recourse! Why? Because there is no competition! Who do we go to? What companies are there that don&#8217;t have some type of restraint on them due to their association with one of these major telcoms?</p>
<p>Come on! Smell the coffee!!! Once again I agree with <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/10/01/whos-the-biggest-threat-to-free-speech-in-america/" target="_blank">T Karr at Save The Internet when he says</a>: <em><strong>&#8220;The biggest threat to free speech in America is public complacency. We must have this discussion about our democratic rights while we still can.&#8221;</strong></em> Our democratic quality of life is getting ripped apart, shredded, by greed and powermongers&#8230; <strong>DO SOMETHING!!!</strong></p>
<p>[arstechnica has a <a href="http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&amp;s=50009562&amp;f=174096756&amp;m=673004767831&amp;r=673004767831" target="_blank">cool discussion</a> going, why not join in? Oh, hey, and while I'm at it, for you pundits that don't believe Net Neutrality and The First Amendment are associated - <strike>GAFL!</strike> - take the blinders off!]</p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/a-perfect-example-there-is-no-competition-217/">A Perfect Example &#8211; There Is No Competition!</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/a-perfect-example-there-is-no-competition-217/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
