Comments on: The Hullabaloo over Lollapalooza: Another Brick in the Neutrality Wall http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sat, 26 May 2012 22:09:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: the coach http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-49116 the coach Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:38:10 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-49116 <p>Good job, enigma, cutting and pasting from Save the Internet.<br>(<a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat">http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat</a>)<br><br>Too bad all of those cases were either 1.) dealt with by the FCC and/or DoJ under existing competition law or 2.) debunked.</p> Good job, enigma, cutting and pasting from Save the Internet.
(http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat)

Too bad all of those cases were either 1.) dealt with by the FCC and/or DoJ under existing competition law or 2.) debunked.

]]> By: the coach http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-39117 the coach Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:38:10 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-39117 <p>Good job, enigma, cutting and pasting from Save the Internet. (http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat)</p> <p>Too bad all of those cases were either 1.) dealt with by the FCC and/or DoJ under existing competition law or 2.) debunked.</p> Good job, enigma, cutting and pasting from Save the Internet. (http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat)

Too bad all of those cases were either 1.) dealt with by the FCC and/or DoJ under existing competition law or 2.) debunked.

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-49115 eee_eff Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:21:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-49115 <p><i>Net neutrality regulation has often been described as a “solution without a problem.” While supporters produce hypothetical concerns like little chocolate doughnuts, real-life examples of abuse have been virtually impossible to find.</i><br><br>Yes, if you read the CEI website, I suppose they are hard to find.<br><br>But, back in the real world, serious attempts by corporations/governments to limit freedom of speech are a common occurrence:<br><br>However, I have on nearly every post Tim Lee has made on this subject, provided evidence of harm that was done, for example a Telcom in a labor dispute that blocked access to pro-striker web sites, and this type of non-content-neutral filtering is exactly the stuff that the very few large conglomerates that own the market for broadband would like to be able to do.<br><br><br>FOR EXAMPLE:<br><br>In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.<br><br>In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.<br><br>Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.<br><br>In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned <a href="http://www.dearaol.com">www.dearaol.com</a> - an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.</p> Net neutrality regulation has often been described as a “solution without a problem.” While supporters produce hypothetical concerns like little chocolate doughnuts, real-life examples of abuse have been virtually impossible to find.

Yes, if you read the CEI website, I suppose they are hard to find.

But, back in the real world, serious attempts by corporations/governments to limit freedom of speech are a common occurrence:

However, I have on nearly every post Tim Lee has made on this subject, provided evidence of harm that was done, for example a Telcom in a labor dispute that blocked access to pro-striker web sites, and this type of non-content-neutral filtering is exactly the stuff that the very few large conglomerates that own the market for broadband would like to be able to do.


FOR EXAMPLE:

In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.

In 2005, Canada’s telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.

Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to “enhance” competing Internet telephone services.

In April, Time Warner’s AOL blocked all emails that mentioned http://www.dearaol.com – an advocacy campaign opposing the company’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-39116 enigma_foundry Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:21:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-39116 <p><i>Net neutrality regulation has often been described as a “solution without a problem.” While supporters produce hypothetical concerns like little chocolate doughnuts, real-life examples of abuse have been virtually impossible to find.</i></p> <p>Yes, if you read the CEI website, I suppose they are hard to find.</p> <p>But, back in the real world, serious attempts by corporations/governments to limit freedom of speech are a common occurrence:</p> <p>However, I have on nearly every post Tim Lee has made on this subject, provided evidence of harm that was done, for example a Telcom in a labor dispute that blocked access to pro-striker web sites, and this type of non-content-neutral filtering is exactly the stuff that the very few large conglomerates that own the market for broadband would like to be able to do.</p> <p>FOR EXAMPLE:</p> <p>In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.</p> <p>In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.</p> <p>Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.</p> <p>In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com - an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.</p> Net neutrality regulation has often been described as a “solution without a problem.” While supporters produce hypothetical concerns like little chocolate doughnuts, real-life examples of abuse have been virtually impossible to find.

Yes, if you read the CEI website, I suppose they are hard to find.

But, back in the real world, serious attempts by corporations/governments to limit freedom of speech are a common occurrence:

However, I have on nearly every post Tim Lee has made on this subject, provided evidence of harm that was done, for example a Telcom in a labor dispute that blocked access to pro-striker web sites, and this type of non-content-neutral filtering is exactly the stuff that the very few large conglomerates that own the market for broadband would like to be able to do.

FOR EXAMPLE:

In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.

In 2005, Canada’s telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.

Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to “enhance” competing Internet telephone services.

In April, Time Warner’s AOL blocked all emails that mentioned http://www.dearaol.com – an advocacy campaign opposing the company’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-49114 eee_eff Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:55:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-49114 <p><i>But what if the aim were in fact broader, and this was an intentional effort to “censor” political comment? Frankly, even then, it’s hard to get worked up.,</i><br><br>Yeah, by all means, let's get used to censorship.<br><br>That would rather fit in with the PFF agenda:<br><br><a href="http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2006/09/07/progress-freedom-foundation-and-ip-centrals-role-model-the-fascist-police-state/">http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2006/09/07/p...</a></p> But what if the aim were in fact broader, and this was an intentional effort to “censor” political comment? Frankly, even then, it’s hard to get worked up.,

Yeah, by all means, let’s get used to censorship.

That would rather fit in with the PFF agenda:

http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2006/09/07/p…

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-39115 enigma_foundry Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:55:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-39115 <p><i>But what if the aim were in fact broader, and this was an intentional effort to “censor” political comment? Frankly, even then, it’s hard to get worked up.,</i></p> <p>Yeah, by all means, let's get used to censorship.</p> <p>That would rather fit in with the PFF agenda:</p> <p>http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2006/09/07/progress-freedom-foundation-and-ip-centrals-role-model-the-fascist-police-state/</p> But what if the aim were in fact broader, and this was an intentional effort to “censor” political comment? Frankly, even then, it’s hard to get worked up.,

Yeah, by all means, let’s get used to censorship.

That would rather fit in with the PFF agenda:

http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2006/09/07/progress-freedom-foundation-and-ip-centrals-role-model-the-fascist-police-state/

]]> By: kdonovan11 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-49113 kdonovan11 Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:55:29 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-49113 <p>According to you, censorship in today's world will result in the exposure. However, as you fail to discuss, two smaller bands were censored at Bonnaroo: John Butler Trio and the Flaming Lips.<br><br>They didn't get the publicity Pearl Jam did but they were similarly silenced.<br><br>Maybe research into the issue will help you understand the stakes: <a href="http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/has-att-censore.html">http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/has-att-cen...</a></p> According to you, censorship in today’s world will result in the exposure. However, as you fail to discuss, two smaller bands were censored at Bonnaroo: John Butler Trio and the Flaming Lips.

They didn’t get the publicity Pearl Jam did but they were similarly silenced.

Maybe research into the issue will help you understand the stakes: http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/has-att-cen…

]]> By: Kevin http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-39114 Kevin Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:55:29 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-39114 <p>According to you, censorship in today's world will result in the exposure. However, as you fail to discuss, two smaller bands were censored at Bonnaroo: John Butler Trio and the Flaming Lips.</p> <p>They didn't get the publicity Pearl Jam did but they were similarly silenced.</p> <p>Maybe research into the issue will help you understand the stakes: http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/has-att-censore.html</p> According to you, censorship in today’s world will result in the exposure. However, as you fail to discuss, two smaller bands were censored at Bonnaroo: John Butler Trio and the Flaming Lips.

They didn’t get the publicity Pearl Jam did but they were similarly silenced.

Maybe research into the issue will help you understand the stakes: http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/has-att-censore.html

]]> By: Anonymous http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-49112 Anonymous Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:36:34 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-49112 <p>Interesting point. Whatever the situation with other incidents (details are still coming out), I still don't see Blue Room as having any significant power to squelch information getting to the public. Its one among countless websites. And the downside for Blue Room attempting to muzzle political views it doesn't agree with is still large -- these things do tend to get out eventually.<br><br>One other possibility is that Blue Room was consciously trying to keep its webcasts "politics free" -- and it or its contractor was bleeping out political references in general. I wouldn't see that neccesarily as a problem -- if they want an entertainment site and not a political site, that's their right. If so, however, it was done inconsistently, since I've read of a number of political statements being aired on these webcasts (all critical of Bush and/or Republicans, by the way). In any case, if AT&T;'s goal was to avoid politics, though, it certainly fumbled that big time.</p> Interesting point. Whatever the situation with other incidents (details are still coming out), I still don’t see Blue Room as having any significant power to squelch information getting to the public. Its one among countless websites. And the downside for Blue Room attempting to muzzle political views it doesn’t agree with is still large — these things do tend to get out eventually.

One other possibility is that Blue Room was consciously trying to keep its webcasts “politics free” — and it or its contractor was bleeping out political references in general. I wouldn’t see that neccesarily as a problem — if they want an entertainment site and not a political site, that’s their right. If so, however, it was done inconsistently, since I’ve read of a number of political statements being aired on these webcasts (all critical of Bush and/or Republicans, by the way). In any case, if AT&T;’s goal was to avoid politics, though, it certainly fumbled that big time.

]]> By: Anonymous http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-39113 Anonymous Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:36:34 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-39113 <p>Interesting point. Whatever the situation with other incidents (details are still coming out), I still don't see Blue Room as having any significant power to squelch information getting to the public. Its one among countless websites. And the downside for Blue Room attempting to muzzle political views it doesn't agree with is still large -- these things do tend to get out eventually.</p> <p>One other possibility is that Blue Room was consciously trying to keep its webcasts "politics free" -- and it or its contractor was bleeping out political references in general. I wouldn't see that neccesarily as a problem -- if they want an entertainment site and not a political site, that's their right. If so, however, it was done inconsistently, since I've read of a number of political statements being aired on these webcasts (all critical of Bush and/or Republicans, by the way). In any case, if AT&T's goal was to avoid politics, though, it certainly fumbled that big time.</p> Interesting point. Whatever the situation with other incidents (details are still coming out), I still don’t see Blue Room as having any significant power to squelch information getting to the public. Its one among countless websites. And the downside for Blue Room attempting to muzzle political views it doesn’t agree with is still large — these things do tend to get out eventually.

One other possibility is that Blue Room was consciously trying to keep its webcasts “politics free” — and it or its contractor was bleeping out political references in general. I wouldn’t see that neccesarily as a problem — if they want an entertainment site and not a political site, that’s their right. If so, however, it was done inconsistently, since I’ve read of a number of political statements being aired on these webcasts (all critical of Bush and/or Republicans, by the way). In any case, if AT&T’s goal was to avoid politics, though, it certainly fumbled that big time.

]]> By: David Bruggeman http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-49111 David Bruggeman Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:15:33 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-49111 <p>It's been reported that other bands have been previously censored by the same operation, and only when Pearl Jam was affected did this attract any attention. So it would appear that the attempts to censor are not futile, unless you're already a big name.</p> It’s been reported that other bands have been previously censored by the same operation, and only when Pearl Jam was affected did this attract any attention. So it would appear that the attempts to censor are not futile, unless you’re already a big name.

]]> By: David Bruggeman http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/comment-page-1/#comment-39112 David Bruggeman Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:15:33 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/08/14/the-hullabaloo-over-lollapalooza-another-brick-in-the-neutrality-wall/#comment-39112 <p>It's been reported that other bands have been previously censored by the same operation, and only when Pearl Jam was affected did this attract any attention. So it would appear that the attempts to censor are not futile, unless you're already a big name.</p> It’s been reported that other bands have been previously censored by the same operation, and only when Pearl Jam was affected did this attract any attention. So it would appear that the attempts to censor are not futile, unless you’re already a big name.

]]>