Category: Yahoo!

The anti-network neutrality crowd has been citing the position of well-regarded Internet pioneer Dave Farber as part of its campaign to undermine support for the issue. Farber has been squared off against pro net neutrality scholar Vint Cerf (now a Google exec.). Farber and some of his academic friends wrote a widely circulated missive in early June deriding Net Neutrality. The paper, entitled “Common Sense about Network Neutrality” was part of an effort organized by Wharton professor Gerald Faulhaber to provide, in their words, “unbiased interdisciplinary analysis of network neutrality.” The piece invoked such prestigious institutions as the Wharton School, Carnegie-Mellon, and the University of Pennsylvania.
But Faulhaber should have acknowledged in this piece that he has been a consultant for Verizon (see his CV). (Other academics in the group–Yoo, Katz–have been employed by the cable lobby). Consequently, this academic group cannot be seen as delivering such an “unbiased” opinion. Dave Farber might need to write about this on his interesting people list. Perhaps a piece on the legitimacy of taking corporate consulting money by scholars and not disclosing it in related papers?

Want to strike a long-lasting blow for Internet freedom in the U.S.? One approach is to no longer buy any products—including phone and Internet service and shares for investment—from the key companies opposed to network neutrality. These companies are brand bullies. They are using their deep pockets to deep-six an open and democratic broadband communications network for the U.S. They only thing they fear is a consumer backlash. So, let’s give them one. Drop them from your residential service. Ask your business or college to use other providers. Tell your retirement fund managers, if you have one, to place these companies on a “do not buy or hold” list. Tell your friends to spread the word. In other words, let’s turn AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner’s brand identity into something that no smart company would ever desire.

Make this a long-term campaign until they reverse political course on network neutrality.

quotes movie fiction pulpmovies sucking pussyrad racing movieamateur sex movies real homemovie temp rectalretro movies beastsample of fucking titty moviesdoo movies scooby Map

One shouldn’t be fooled by all the PR and rhetoric (let alone the ads) coming from both Bells and cable about what is supposed to be our innovative and creative media future. What Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and others want to give us is a souped-up interactive digital system delivering lots of TV-like entertainment—accompanied by a torrent of personalized advertising. That’s why the cable and phone monopoly are opposed to network neutrality. A truly open system would permit our eyeballs and clicks to really roam free. That’s something that terrifies them, since we would likely be engaged with content they either don’t own or are able to impose a mafia-esque system of payments on (Telco/cable bosses to Gates, Page, Brin, Diller [fill in your name here or favorite site]. If you don’t pay us our digital “vig,” your content is going to end up buried in silicon floating in the East River).

So we think it’s instructive, as part of this blog’s early digital warning function, to give folks a preview of the content soon coming to our broadband screens. What does Verizon plan to offer us, in exchange for killing off community oversight of cable and the scuttling of network neutrality? “Widgets.” Yes, Verizon is running fiber to the home so, according to The Deal, it can offer a “widget” service that “will display local weather and traffic info on TV screens without interrupting a program” [“The Phone Man: Verizon’s CTO, Mark Wegleitner, on how the Bells plan to compete with the cables.” Chris Nolter. June 19-25. 2006]. Wegleitner told The Deal that Verizon is also planning products for “heavy-duty gamers. Maybe they are watching the equivalent of QVC for gamers and say, Boy, I’d like to get more information on that. So they click a button and zip to an infomercial on that game.”

That’s not all. Verizon wants to sync up its mobile video service with what we view over broadband. Verizon SVP, video solutions, Marilyn O’Connell told Screenplays magazine (which covers the broadband market) that the company is thinking about all the triple play revenues it can make from selling music, gaming and information across all platforms. So we are going to see what she calls “threads between what VCAST [Verizon’s mobile content service] is developing in portable snacking on entertainment, and what we’re creating over on the TV side, as well as on the broadband side” [“A View of Things to Come on Verizon’s Roadmap,” June 2006].

This is what we’re going to get if we allow Sen. Ted (“Internets”) Stevens and the bunch of “under the Bell $ influence” R’s and D’s in the House (led by Joe Barton) to get their way with the Telecom bill.

The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) has long been part of the political support system for the communications industry. Although it considers itself a public interest group, CDT has ultimately served the interests of its many corporate funders (AT&T, Doubleclick, Verizon. Acxion, Time Warner, etc.) Indeed, the group backed away from the network neutrality issue several years ago (then known as “open access”) because, in the words of one CDT executive, “our funders would kill us” if the group called for a truly open (let alone privacy protected) digital media system. CDT’s policy briefs and lobbying often enable its corporate supporters to achieve their political goals (including preventing unwanted legislation, such as safeguards. We think that in the case of CDT’s recent proposal on net neutrality, that’s what they are doing here. For it would fail to protect our (U.S.) digital media environment from being controlled by a tiny handful of broadband giants—AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon.

In this case, CDT [read their June 20 policy paper] would permit these monopolists to control the vast expanse of digital distribution that will likely deliver the majority of content to us. In its report, CDT says that “some basic rules requiring network operators to preserve nondiscrimination and openness” would only apply to “those portions of broadband networks dedicated to the Internet.” In other words, the vast majority of capacity used to deliver video and other multi-media content could likely be off-limits to any net neutral safeguards. The phone and cable companies claim they are building private networks—where broadband applications may not traverse over what is considered the “public Internet.” Hence the need, in our view, for far-reaching safeguards to ensure true Internet freedom. CDT also is opposed to any federal rule ensuring common carriage and price protections for consumers.

CDT would like to consider that its proposal is well founded, while others (such as the proponents of true network neutrality) engage in “public rhetoric.” This is also part of CDT’s modus operandi, with a “let’s make a deal we can broker on the Hill” mentality. One shouldn’t be fooled by CDT. What’s needed are strong rules across all digital platforms to ensure a democratic media system. Not—as CDT would have it—give us a small portion of capacity, while electronic privateers control most of the network.

firemans ball mp3 1996 charlie prayermp3 aladdin pictur original 1998 motionmp3 nervous breakdown 19th1at lady mp3mp3 973 1jameskirk franklin mp3 ft 1ncmp3 again 1ncemake it mp3 1tym Map

mp3 2×2 shinobudenmp3 24000 baci201 mp3 colin overkill haymp3 95 29 1g3660 mp3 skinmp3 metallica 2×4front 242 mp3tubular part bells 203 mp3 Map

The Bush Administration’s attack on the New York Times is a poisonous and despicable political tactic. It was the Administration—backed by most of Congress—which led us into a war based on lies and deception. They should be held in contempt by the American people for directly causing the loss of so many lives (let alone the daily misfortune of many). Bravo to the New York Times and the few other news outlets courageous enough to keep the American people informed about domestic spying and other surveillance schemes that threaten our civil liberties. The White House has clearly lifted a tactic out of Richard Nixon’s political playbook: the use of Spiro Agnew to help defend another disastrous war–Vietnam. In a much-publicized speech, Agnew attacked the news media as “nattering nabobs of negativism” as part of Nixon’s political counter-offensive. As now, the White House was desperately trying to change the growing public disenchantment with that war. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

clips horse moviemovies pussy hothot gallery movie xxxjapanese movies teenlatex movies glamourlick clit myloews movie theatersnudity male movies Map

The vote on the new communications “reform” bill in the Senate was a victory for the nation’s communications giants. It sets the stage for the `pay as you surf, download, & post’ digital media system that is the business model for our broadband giants. The phone and cable companies wish to be first in line so they can—in their own words—monetize all digital communications. The reason they oppose network neutrality is simply because it would prevent them from readily tacking on a host of extra charges for both consumers and content providers. A net neutral U.S. Internet would also threaten their ability to ensure that their content—video games, movies, online gambling, etc—receive favorable transport, processing, and promotion. It’s great that so many committee Democrats have finally woken up to the threat (led there in part, ironically, by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Me). The 11-11 tie on network neutrality should be a signal, however, that all must be done to prevent Sen. Steven’s absurd “Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act” from passing the full Senate. Among the give-aways to our new media conglomerates was a permanent ban on Internet taxation. This is a boon for a few online operators at the expense of education, public safety, health care and other community services. The vote to make the moratorium on Internet taxes permanent was 19-3 (helping lead the charge was Sen Allen (R-Va).

Meanwhile, up in Canada, we have another example about what happens when we permit broadband monopolists to control access via unfettered Quality of Service (QoS) pricing schemes. Shaw Communications, the leading Canadian cable company, is using its clout over broadband lines to derail competition in the voice-over-Internet-protocol (VOIP) market. Shaw claims that customers of Vonage and other competitors should pay it a $10 per month “QoS Enhancement” fee in order to ensure their calls get the same favorable treatment the cable company gives its own VOIP customers. According to press reports about the litigation between Shaw and Vonage, the cable company says its VOIP service is “offered over the operator’s QoS-enabled network, managed network, while Vonage’s service travels the public Internet and is open to packet delays and other inherent limitations.”

In other words, welcome to the wacky, undemocratic, and Citizen Kane-esqe world of the two-tiered Internet. Thank you Senator Stevens! Once again, building us in the U.S. the digital bridge to somewhere. Namely, the bank vaults of Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner.

movie female orgasmffm movieschubby movies teen freemovies free downloadable xxxfellatio free moviesfull movies lengh free porngangbang clips movie freefree movie hardcore clip Map

Soon, the Bush FCC will launch an effort to further consolidate control of a few over the nation’s major newspapers and T.V. stations. Martin is determined to accomplish what his predecessor Michael Powell was incapable of doing. Martin will allow major daily newspapers to be folded into T.V. empires (by eliminating the cross-ownership safeguard). He will also permit a single company to own several T.V. stations in the same town. As with Powell, Martin thinks it’s fine and dandy for one company to own multiple TV stations, eight radio stations, the newspaper, the cable system, and the principal broadband Internet service provider in a single large market. Also as with Powell, Martin appears to be also giving a cold shoulder to fellow Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein who want to see real public debate and a serious independent research review done prior to any decision-making. As with so many other FCC officials, past and present, Democratic and Republican, Martin has a “don’t ask, don’t tell me” policy when it comes to honestly addressing the current crisis in U.S. electronic media (recall TV’s failure to seriously cover the run-up to the war, among many other discouraging examples).

Yesterday, President Bush made clear who is calling the FCC shots. At a signing of the new Bush-Martin (and sadly, Michael Coops) indecency law, the President said, referring to Martin [according to Broadcasting & Cable] that: “He’s a part of the Executive branch. And since I’m the head of the executive branch, I take responsibility, as well, for putting people in place at the FCC who understand one of their jobs, and an important job, is to protect American families.” Of course, the FCC is supposed to be an independent agency. It’s not—as White House’s past and present frequently tell the Chair what to do via back channel. In the case of media ownership and network neutrality, you can be sure that WH has weighed in to help detail Kevin Martin’s pro-Big Media agenda.

Next week, Martin will approve a new huge give-away to the broadcasting industry, worth billions (it’s called multi-casting must carry). This will give every TV station, and powerful group owners, the leverage to extract programming and broadband distribution concessions from phone and cable companies (the TV lobby won’t need network neutrality, since Martin is giving them the ability to ensure their programming streams can run on the fast lane for free).

But Martin will find some rough seas ahead. His reputation as chair is likely to be one of a narrow-minded bureaucrat, rather than a real public servant.

Ready as always to weaken the public interest potential of U.S. communications, James L. Gattuso wrote a anti-network neutrality “Backgrounder” for the Heritage Foundation (released June 2, 2006). Subtitled “Will Congress Neuter the Net?”, the piece is a politically timed missive designed to undermine the growing pressure on Congress to enact network neutrality safeguards. It contains the usual litany of rationalizations and under-developed analysis used by big cable and phone advocates to criticize network neutrality.

But notably missing from Mr. Gatttuso’s piece is any admission that two of the Heritage Foundation’s funders just happen to be–yes, AT&T and Verizon. In its 2005 annual report, AT&T is listed as one of the few “premier associates.” Verizon is placed at “executive associates” status. It just so happens, as you know, that AT&T and Verizon are leading the charge against network neutrality (and paying a lot for the work of many opposition groups). Perhaps it was an oversight of Mr. Gattuso. But such financial ties must be identified (he should also have noted that Professor Yoo, whom he frequently cites, undertook a anti-network neutrality study funded by the cable lobby).

We will respond to the so-called Backgrounder in our next post. Mr. Gattuso should look closely at his Heritage’s Foundation funders and acknowledge any potential conflicts of interest.

For years, one of the biggest impediments to organized labor’s goals to promote a more democratic America has been the media/telecom policies of the Communications Workers of America (CWA). Now, with CWA’s active lobbying against a federal network neutrality safeguard, CWA once again reveals its misguided, wrong-headed, short-term approach to communications policy. This week, CWA sided with Verizon, AT&T and other phone and cable giants who are fighting tooth and nail to derail Internet freedom legislation. On May 24, CWA President Larry Cohen sent a letter [PDF] opposing the network neutrality bill offered by House Judiciary Committee chair James Sensenbrenner, Jr. CWA became a flack for Verizon and others when it claimed that his bill, which would ensure an open Internet, “would retard” the “deployment of universal, affordable high-speed networks…” (Thanks to great work by advocates, the bill passed the committee 20-13).

Over the last decade, CWA has not served its members and the larger union movement well. Instead of advocating for an open media system, CWA has frequently sided with “big media” interests, especially the largest phone companies. For example, CWA supported the Comcast takeover of AT&T Broadband. CWA representatives will claim that by opposing network neutrality, they are helping the economic interests of their employers (and helping promote job security at Verizon, AT&T, etc.). But it is shortsighted thinking. Only with a truly open digital media system will Labor be able to get its message out and mobilize supporters. A democratic media system—with a non-discriminatory Internet/digital medium at its core—will help fulfill the goal of Labor for a more democratic U.S. CWA has largely set the communications/media policy agenda for the AFL-CIO. It has helped the union movement think “small” and short-term at precisely the point when a bold and forward-thinking approach is required for it to thrive in the new media era. Sadly, CWA also violates the best interests of the journalists it represents through its Newspaper Guild affiliate. In essence, CWA is opposed to the free flow of information online. (In its letter, CWA claims that while it opposes network neutrality, it supports an “open Internet.” But it does so by backing the toothless provisions in the “COPE” bill that would have the FCC set up a Bell/cable friendly “complaint adjudication process.”)

CWA has lots of high-minded communications policy rhetoric on its website. But it might as well replace its union logo with that of AT&T, Comcast and others who are engaged in a digital land grab of the Net. The leaders of CWA should be ashamed of themselves. And its members should demand the union reverse its position and join with others supporting network neutrality.

PS: Read a brief commentary from SEIU’s Andy Stern supporting network neutrality. Here’s a union leader who gets it.

movies hentai dbzpoltergeist moviemovie celebrity archive browsefree movies preteenmovie rapeisland movie predatormovies asswatcher freeasswatcher free movies Map

All along, the move by the Bush Administration to permit a few giant telecom companies to control the flow of all the data coming into to our PC’s, mobile devices and (very soon) digital TV’s have raised concerns about the government’s ability to more effectively monitor our communications and behavior. The fight for network neutrality has always also been a way to throw some kind of digital monkey wrench into the kind of one-stop eavesdropping our government likes to do. The Bush broadband plan, initiated by former FCC chair Michael Powell and continued by current chair Kevin Martin, permits just a few to control our broadband communications. Among them, of course, are the phone companies nailed yesterday by Leslie Cauley in USA Today: AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon.

The Bush plan has turned over a great deal of the U.S. digital distribution system to these three domestic spying allies. But as cable companies expand their voice service over the Internet, don’t think Comcast and Time Warner won’t also be asked—and line up– as well. These few broadband gatekeepers will know more than our phone calls; they will know where we go in cyberpace and–through location identification technologies–also know we are on the street. It isn’t healthy for a democracy to only have a handful of giants in two industries controlling all broadband traffic. Companies who are always interested in playing ball with Washington. Indeed, it’s the convenience of one-stop domestic spying that may be one reason why the Bush Administration supports the broadband giveaway to the Bells and cable.

Of course, both the phone and cable industry plan to do a lot of spying on us anyway—for commercial purposes (see this page for industry documents from Cisco and others that explain further how much personal info will be collected). Groups such as the ACLU and others had wanted a policy where the U.S. would have thousands of ISP’s—hence making it more difficult for the Feds to line-up everyone’s data. The Bush folks made sure we lost that (they got some help from a number of Dems as well). Now the only choices we may have are companies in bed with the NSA and DOJ. That’s why we need a network neutrality safeguard. It must be at the foundation of digital era civil liberty safeguards protecting our privacy from both commercial and governmental surveillance.