[tomder55]

Sorry , the bottom line is that power concentrated in the hands of Federal Bureaucracies is a dangerous thing be that agency the NSA ,the EPA ,or the FCC. The court decision against the FCC in the Verizon case not only set the path to future enforcement of so called Net Neutrality .... but it also gave the FCC the power to regulate almost all aspects on the net . It won't be long before they dabble in price setting of rates for services connected to the Internet . How long will it be before they are regulating the content itself ? You hear politicians calling for a return of concepts like the 'fairness doctrine' in other areas the FCC regulates . Would they try the same doctrine on the Internet ..... you betcha !

[InfoJunkie4Life]

I'm not one to complain usually, but it is you paraclete that has killed the debate by posting nothing constructive nor providing any useful or cited information. Rather, you prefer to bash anyone's opinion that is not the same as yours. Leave now and stick to accounting advice and cold war debates.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

Sorry , the bottom line is that power concentrated in the hands of Federal Bureaucracies is a dangerous thing be that agency the NSA ,the EPA ,or the FCC. The court decision against the FCC in the Verizon case not only set the path to future enforcement of so called Net Neutrality .... but it also gave the FCC the power to regulate almost all aspects on the net . It won't be long before they dabble in price setting of rates for services connected to the Internet . How long will it be before they are regulating the content itself ? You hear politicians calling for a return of concepts like the 'fairness doctrine' in other areas the FCC regulates . Would they try the same doctrine on the Internet ..... you betcha !

You are right tom.

Any centralized power only favor's those who contribute to it, the rich. You are %100 correct in saying that the FCC has the power to regulate all aspects of the net. The DMCA decisions made in the last couple of years support this. Even Google says that more than1/3 of DMCA complaints they have had to comply with are non copyright issues, and further indicate that they put the burden of proof on the indicted, rather that on those placing the blame. My point is not against centralized power but rather a re-envisioning of the regulations placed in effect. All business has been regulated in the U.S. and other countries throughout history aside from pure anarchy, my point is that regulation should support innovation and growth not lining the pockets of the powers to be.

[NeedKarma]

Of course there would be no need for this if U.S. providers acted like all other providers in the western world and treated net neutrality as the default position.

[paraclete]

Infojunkie no one appointed you the thought police and I have been here much longer than you so take your own advice

[NeedKarma]

no one appointed you the thought police

But you did just that with your comment.

I have been here much longer than you

That means nothing at all, all input is appreciated regardless of tenure.

[paraclete]

all input is appreciated regardless of tenure

.

Exactly my point go take the other fellow to task for his non inclusive comments,

Other point was please be succinct not all of us have a great deal of time

Just thought I would translate those for you in case you are having difficulty with the accent

[NeedKarma]

Take the time to read or just gloss over the comment. Now go get yourself a Fosters. If the technical threads confuse you then stay out of them.

[tomder55]

Even Google says that more than[COLOR=#0000ff]1/3 of DMCA complaints they have had to comply with[/COLOR] are non copyright issues, and further indicate that they put the burden of proof on the indicted, rather that on those placing the blame.

Sec 92 A is a part of New Zealand's copyright laws.

But there are similar issues with takedown requests in the US.
I do recall that was an issue when the music industry was suing individuals and peer to peer share sites . I do see that Youtube routinely takes down content at the request of the 'owner ' but do not know what role the government plays in these decisions over an agreement between the parties .In one case the courts ruled in favor of Google's 'safe harbor '(DMCA Section 512) over Viacom's claim that Youtube was providing Viacom's copyright content ;but the 2 parties settled . More recently a jury found MP3Tunes liable for copyright infringment ( 'Capitol Records Inc v MP3Tunes ') . http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

The law is in place already in the US for issues regarding violations of copyrights . The takedown upon request on the surface seems to be reasonable ;with the courts intervening in disputes . The New Zealand law puts the burden of proof on the indicted . I can't get a firm reading on how the provision works according to current US law. Sounds like it's an issue CONGRESS should review and amend if necessary .

[InfoJunkie4Life]

Indeed that is how it is intended, to seem reasonable. The major issue in the US is not that copyright laws are unjust or unfair, but rather how they are carried out. Your privilege to use the internet can be remanded by your ISP if they receive a DMCA complaint. I have personally received these warnings. They can remove your content from public places if they receive a complaint. They can put pressure on large organizations to comply with a set of laws that are very close to breaking free speech, due process, and fair commerce, even now they are trying to ensure government forced censorship, last year the SOPA law was introduced to congress. It was never voted in, however was supported by some of the largest media organizations. They do not care about what Americans want but rather how to protect their own interests and hold the world hostage. You will find that the MPAA sponsors many such laws across the globe and is not afraid to break them when they see fit.

They are legally stripping fair use, and free speech. Everything said, sung, written, etc. can be trademarked, copy written, tracked and controlled.

[talaniman]

Seems reasonable to have a procedure that leaves allegations, and presumptions, in the hand of an "impartial" court system rather the judgements of monied interests. Misuse of the net for profits by illegal means is a very high possibility and the law need to keep up with abuse of technology.

Complaints should be addressed by a court, expensive and time consuming as that may be.

[tomder55]

yes and not by government agencies that have not been empowered to make these calls.
What will come with reclassification as a public utility will be the surcharges ,excise taxing authority and other related fees associated with every other public utility ...and the FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF) . btw ,I have no issue with copyright protection.

[talaniman]

Its already been that way for years or haven't you been ready your cable bills?

[smoothy]

Something most people don't realize when they compare to physically much smaller countries for costs etc... is the astronomical costs to string fiber, and the sheer size of the USA compared to the population. If anyone thinks the Telcos are making money hand over fist right now on this... they are mistaken. Most of their profits are being made on wireless right now... and even wireless most of this relies on landlines for the long haul and for the data services specifically. Speaking as someone who is in this field and sees all the briefings, and Internal news, some of which doesn't get released.

Most of them are losing money right now on the landline end of things... and if they are lucky, breaking even or making a precious few bucks. Most are laying off lots of people in the landline side of the house.

[tomder55]

Its already been that way for years or haven't you been ready your cable bills?

actually no . I do not subscribe to the net through my cable service . The taxes and fees on my cable bill relate to the purchase of their cable tv services .

[talaniman]

But we agree you would pay state taxes if you did?

[tomder55]

no I do not agree at all .
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...105publ277.pdf

47 U.S. Code § 151 - Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created | LII / Legal Information Institute 47USC 151 imposes a moratorium on internet taxes (except on sales taxes from purchases made on the net ).And most local governments do not tax internet access. Ironically ,the law is up for renewal this month. Is it a coincidence that the law is set to expire at the same time the emperor proposed this net move ? I doubt it.

[paraclete]

Opportunist, Tom? Or convenient timing. I hadn't noticed how do you handle collecting taxes on items purchased outside the US? It may not be a problem for you but it sure is for us. If the item is purchased locally it attracts a tax if purchased on the net cross border it doesn't.

Yes smoothy, size and population have a big impact, we have been stringing fibre with an estimated cost of $30B or maybe $1,500 per person. Doing the same thing in the US would have an entirely different dynamic both in the number of customers and the length of fibre required

[cdad]

What is needed is one basic protocol that is universal in nature and that all ISP's must adhere to. And as far as access the IANA can deny service to block IP's if some company decides to violate the protocol and tries to create fast tracking. In the begining the internet was never meant to be a commercial venture. In todays world it is over commercialized. Now instead of printed ads at the sides of pages many have videos running in them that are pure spam. Its becoming nonsense. Also the only reason Google wants to give out so called "fee internet" is because people are very stupid and are willing to give up every piece of information they transmit to give to the google collective. If they couldnt collect the data they wouldnt be giving it away.

With the FCC involved then they will become more powerful then many can imagine. They can and will sweep the internet for hate speech and whatever else they can find and make Russia and Chine look like amatures. The internet has given enough of its life and its fast coming to an end. There are as we speak many that already segment the internet into intranets and use it against the public good. With technology comes responsibility but as I see it now many cant even comprehend what is happening already in the world around us and quite frankly they just dont care so long as its free.

[Fr_Chuck]

In China, the firewall is by province (like US states) and what is blocked in one, may not be blocked in another (although Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and a few sites are blocked nation wide.

Here, around time when political things are happening, the blockage gets higher, This site has been blocked a few times here in China.

For example, ( while stupid) there was a large demonstration about a week ago, they picketed and blocked major roads in the city here. I happen to get caught in the middle of it. (although I quickly got out of it) But before long, police and most likely military came and the people blocking the roads all were gone

But the news will not ever mention it happening. Even some of the major terrorist activities we have in southern China is either barely mentioned or not at all.

But on a good note, my home internet, costs me less than 100 USD a year for unlimited service and that includes a home phone.

My wireless internet for my Ipod, using a sim card, costs me about 300 USD a year.