i've never heard such stupid fear-mongering. let's start with this little self-refuting gem. "if you want to know what a non-neutral network looks like, look at the iphone." wait a minute, you assert that this network is non-"neutral" - this network in which i'm walking around watching your stupid vid and any other that i want with skype open. so...
1) why would i need to reference my understanding of the alleged horrors of not having the internet controlled by the government to this scary, SCARY new wireless dystopia you're warning us about, if according to your controll-freak fearmongering we're already living the nightmare on the present platform.
and 2) you speak desperately about what at&t "will" do to control what users access. why don't they do it now? what's magic about wireless that it turns at&t evil? why would the alternative ownership you seek to transfer the net to - the government - not opt to do what you presume without cause that at&t "will" do?
one further thing. the iphone's sole and only innovation is its dual toutch screen. everything else i could do on a laptop three years ago. you're not trying to control dual-touch screen tech. you're tryying to steal the iinternet from private providers and havd it over to big brother. you know what ben? i think you're a creep. you're the only one whoos announced an agenda to control the means by which i access bandwidth in a way i can't consent to.
you like control. you don't so much resent the type of control private owners have but don't use ("YET..." in your hysterical narrative) as you would pprefer that that control be "safely" in the hands of a grey beaurocracy. one in which you could easily find yourself, believing that you morality in holding such a position could never be mistaken for fascism because after all you only make $40k controling people's bandwidth.
but you're a fascist. and i hoppe that if you ever go around claiming to be champion of civil liberties that some passerby recognizes the teachability of the moment and slaps you broadly across the face. you are a fascist in a cheap, blended shirt, ben. fuck you.
i've never heard such stupid fear-mongering. let's start with this little self-refuting gem. "if you want to know what a non-neutral network looks like, look at the iphone." wait a minute, you assert that this network is non-"neutral" - this network in which i'm walking around watching your stupid vid and any other that i want with skype open. so...
so, esentially your organization is like a parasite which seeks to attach itself to the most successful platform and sucks on it until everything which made it up is distributed evenly as waste.
The iPhone only being on AT&T is fine. If you want an iPhone wait for your contract to be up or get a unlocked one on Ebay. The iPhone is an exclusive phone for AT&T and compare that too video games. Halo is an exclusive on Xbox 360. Should they bring it to the Sony Playstation cause people dont want to pay to buy an Xbox 360? AT&T wants money and thats why they are doing it.
Yeah, if this non-neutrality keeps up, we might end up with, for instance, airlines that allow you to upgrade to 'first class' if you're willing to pay more. God forbid!
Your net-neutrality is what's going to ruin the internet, if anything. You're opening the door for the government to regulate the Internet. Sounds like a great plan to me. Since when do you have a 'right' to internet service anyway? You need to go to netcompetition dot org and do some research.
Our government cannot reason its way out of a paper bag and I'm expected to trust them on this or any other issue? To hell with save the internet. What we need to do is save our country from our government. That is an issue I will get behind.
The Tower of Babel - Confuse their communications and then you bring them all down!!!
Internet should be available to all. Cell phone industry should be regulated and not be allowed to rip us all off!!!!!Communications should be open to us all!!!!!!!!!What is wrong with our Congresspeople???XCannot they see that???
True, but what the fight is about is that you can't be on T-Mobile, which is also GSM, and use the iPhone. Also, the hearings aren't just about the iPhone, see my comments above if interested.
i wish. i'm afraid thiis is the real genuine, "i'm from the government and i'm here to help you" brand of progressive grassroots activism, where progressive headhunders go out and appply "soial justice" against private producers and owners until theiy're dead and hand the bounty over to the government for a modest processing fee. sort of what bailbondsmen and other scum do.
Lastly I'll say this: YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY AN IPHONE! No, you don't. If you don't like the contract, or any other limitations, then there are plenty of other capable phones.
Seriously, I think you're jumping on the iPhone hype to make a general point about issues that have nothing to do with the iPhone.
The problem is that people want to buy the iPhone, unfortunately AT&T has an exclusive contract with Apple, so if you are on Verizon, Sprint, or any other wireless service you are unable to use the iPhone. The hearings are not on the iPhone itself but on the protection of consumer choice using the iPhone as an example.
What's that about not being able to go to any website you want via wifi? I've never heard anyone say they couldn't go to sites. Wifi has nothing to do with AT&T. The only problem with iPhone web is that it doesn't have flash or java plug in -- yet. AND I'll say this: Safari browser uses all the latest and upcoming web standards so you'll not get a lock-in like Microsoft did with explorer.
What he was referring to, is that the wireless companies will cripple the ability of the wireless device to link up with your wifi access point, and the comment made about not being able to pull up certain sites is in reference to the WAP browser on your phone not using your wifi.
Why do you think Apple made an exclusive deal with AT&T? Because AT&T gave Apple carte blanche do develop the phone it wanted. Take "visual voicemail" for example. Apple was able to innovate with AT&T or any other carrier's bugging them.
I'm totally in support of openness and choice and what the "Save the Internet" project is all about.
But I'm not sure why you're picking on the iPhone except that it's an easy target because of its big hype release.
First of all, if you didn't know that you'd be locked in with AT&T for 2 years, then you're dumb for not checking ahead of time. All that info has been well publicized.
What the hearings are about is the lack of innovation in the wireless industry, the blocking of content on WAP, the disabling of features on phones that are enabled in other countries in this case wifi. Also, it is about the protection of the consumer's choice, right now if you wanted open internet standards the only phone available which can provide that is the iPhone which means that you would be forced to sign up with AT&T. Hardly a choice in my opinion.
just cause its been publicized doesnt make it right. we should be in agreement that we are not interested in a NON-Neutral internet enviro. He;s not picking on the I-phone, he's saying the product has brought this issue into light again.
i've never heard such stupid fear-mongering. let's start with this little self-refuting gem. "if you want to know what a non-neutral network looks like, look at the iphone." wait a minute, you assert that this network is non-"neutral" - this network in which i'm walking around watching your stupid vid and any other that i want with skype open. so...
clemtoe 4 years ago
1) why would i need to reference my understanding of the alleged horrors of not having the internet controlled by the government to this scary, SCARY new wireless dystopia you're warning us about, if according to your controll-freak fearmongering we're already living the nightmare on the present platform.
clemtoe 4 years ago
and 2) you speak desperately about what at&t "will" do to control what users access. why don't they do it now? what's magic about wireless that it turns at&t evil? why would the alternative ownership you seek to transfer the net to - the government - not opt to do what you presume without cause that at&t "will" do?
clemtoe 4 years ago
one further thing. the iphone's sole and only innovation is its dual toutch screen. everything else i could do on a laptop three years ago. you're not trying to control dual-touch screen tech. you're tryying to steal the iinternet from private providers and havd it over to big brother. you know what ben? i think you're a creep. you're the only one whoos announced an agenda to control the means by which i access bandwidth in a way i can't consent to.
clemtoe 4 years ago
you like control. you don't so much resent the type of control private owners have but don't use ("YET..." in your hysterical narrative) as you would pprefer that that control be "safely" in the hands of a grey beaurocracy. one in which you could easily find yourself, believing that you morality in holding such a position could never be mistaken for fascism because after all you only make $40k controling people's bandwidth.
clemtoe 4 years ago
but you're a fascist. and i hoppe that if you ever go around claiming to be champion of civil liberties that some passerby recognizes the teachability of the moment and slaps you broadly across the face. you are a fascist in a cheap, blended shirt, ben. fuck you.
clemtoe 4 years ago
i've never heard such stupid fear-mongering. let's start with this little self-refuting gem. "if you want to know what a non-neutral network looks like, look at the iphone." wait a minute, you assert that this network is non-"neutral" - this network in which i'm walking around watching your stupid vid and any other that i want with skype open. so...
clemtoe 4 years ago
so, esentially your organization is like a parasite which seeks to attach itself to the most successful platform and sucks on it until everything which made it up is distributed evenly as waste.
clemtoe 4 years ago
The iPhone only being on AT&T is fine. If you want an iPhone wait for your contract to be up or get a unlocked one on Ebay. The iPhone is an exclusive phone for AT&T and compare that too video games. Halo is an exclusive on Xbox 360. Should they bring it to the Sony Playstation cause people dont want to pay to buy an Xbox 360? AT&T wants money and thats why they are doing it.
KR3DO 4 years ago
Yeah, if this non-neutrality keeps up, we might end up with, for instance, airlines that allow you to upgrade to 'first class' if you're willing to pay more. God forbid!
Your net-neutrality is what's going to ruin the internet, if anything. You're opening the door for the government to regulate the Internet. Sounds like a great plan to me. Since when do you have a 'right' to internet service anyway? You need to go to netcompetition dot org and do some research.
dougoler 4 years ago
Check out Tom in 2008!
kakuiguy 4 years ago
I would love an IPhone but I am with Sprint which has a better network then AT&T so why would I switch? Fee the IPhone!
Brian29841 4 years ago
Our government cannot reason its way out of a paper bag and I'm expected to trust them on this or any other issue? To hell with save the internet. What we need to do is save our country from our government. That is an issue I will get behind.
RockyBluz 4 years ago
I think they call it the dumb government "thing" been going on for the last 50 to 60 years.
bensonii 4 years ago
The Tower of Babel - Confuse their communications and then you bring them all down!!!
Internet should be available to all. Cell phone industry should be regulated and not be allowed to rip us all off!!!!!Communications should be open to us all!!!!!!!!!What is wrong with our Congresspeople???XCannot they see that???
SparklestheClown 4 years ago
This guy does realize that the Phone physically can't work on the Verizon network, exclusive deal or not - one's GSM and the other is CDMA.
That would be like complaining that your copy of Half-Life 2 doesn't work on Linux or a Mac, and blaming Microsoft for it...
ConnertheCat 4 years ago
True, but what the fight is about is that you can't be on T-Mobile, which is also GSM, and use the iPhone. Also, the hearings aren't just about the iPhone, see my comments above if interested.
vanceyb 4 years ago
lol can anyone say astroturf
fernacular 4 years ago
i wish. i'm afraid thiis is the real genuine, "i'm from the government and i'm here to help you" brand of progressive grassroots activism, where progressive headhunders go out and appply "soial justice" against private producers and owners until theiy're dead and hand the bounty over to the government for a modest processing fee. sort of what bailbondsmen and other scum do.
clemtoe 4 years ago
Lastly I'll say this: YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY AN IPHONE! No, you don't. If you don't like the contract, or any other limitations, then there are plenty of other capable phones.
Seriously, I think you're jumping on the iPhone hype to make a general point about issues that have nothing to do with the iPhone.
vudicarus 4 years ago
The problem is that people want to buy the iPhone, unfortunately AT&T has an exclusive contract with Apple, so if you are on Verizon, Sprint, or any other wireless service you are unable to use the iPhone. The hearings are not on the iPhone itself but on the protection of consumer choice using the iPhone as an example.
vanceyb 4 years ago
What's that about not being able to go to any website you want via wifi? I've never heard anyone say they couldn't go to sites. Wifi has nothing to do with AT&T. The only problem with iPhone web is that it doesn't have flash or java plug in -- yet. AND I'll say this: Safari browser uses all the latest and upcoming web standards so you'll not get a lock-in like Microsoft did with explorer.
vudicarus 4 years ago
What he was referring to, is that the wireless companies will cripple the ability of the wireless device to link up with your wifi access point, and the comment made about not being able to pull up certain sites is in reference to the WAP browser on your phone not using your wifi.
vanceyb 4 years ago
Why do you think Apple made an exclusive deal with AT&T? Because AT&T gave Apple carte blanche do develop the phone it wanted. Take "visual voicemail" for example. Apple was able to innovate with AT&T or any other carrier's bugging them.
vudicarus 4 years ago
What iPhone hearings?
I'm totally in support of openness and choice and what the "Save the Internet" project is all about.
But I'm not sure why you're picking on the iPhone except that it's an easy target because of its big hype release.
First of all, if you didn't know that you'd be locked in with AT&T for 2 years, then you're dumb for not checking ahead of time. All that info has been well publicized.
vudicarus 4 years ago
What the hearings are about is the lack of innovation in the wireless industry, the blocking of content on WAP, the disabling of features on phones that are enabled in other countries in this case wifi. Also, it is about the protection of the consumer's choice, right now if you wanted open internet standards the only phone available which can provide that is the iPhone which means that you would be forced to sign up with AT&T. Hardly a choice in my opinion.
vanceyb 4 years ago
just cause its been publicized doesnt make it right. we should be in agreement that we are not interested in a NON-Neutral internet enviro. He;s not picking on the I-phone, he's saying the product has brought this issue into light again.
everybodysfavourite 4 years ago