2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Please feel free to be done any time you're ready.

Let me remind you of the thread. It is about Net Neutrality. Not identifying packets. My position is that Net Neutrality must be enforced as the law of the land. Regardless of movie downloads or bandwidth issues. TO INSURE THAT FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES that might DIFFERENTIATE CONTENT are not brought into play to limit political content on the net.

FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES.

Note the word FUTURE.

Thanks.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

That's not to say there won't be ways to differentiate in the future. The problem is, we need to insure that Net Neutrality isn't shot down because of people downloading movies and then we face a future where protected political speech starts to get limited too.

You know what I mean? Let's say the Green Party's web site just starts loading a lot slower... Enough slower that say, 20% of users give up and go to some other URL.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

THANK YOU.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

We are rapidly approaching a point at which the line between the Government and Major Corporate Interests is indistinguishable.

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, I REPEAT, ONE LAST TIME, we need a firewall against present and future technologies that might allow telecoms to control which content moves quickly across the net and which does not.

The principle of net neutrality trumps any and all bandwidth management issues.

Now, please stop focusing on what you consider to be your technical expertise and consider the long view political implications of the net. It is the only place where progressive political activity is currently taking place on a large scale. Broadcast TV has been locked down by big media.

Do you want these same big corporations to start choosing what you see and hear on the net? Simple question.

Thanks.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Don't you remember that the defense department has a program called Carnivore? Do you think they are stopping at searching for keywords? Packet IDs are already being identified. How do you think ComCast knows when peer to peer packets are in play?

We need Net Neutrality to insure against future technological capabilities as well as current ones.

It's not a red herring. It's an enforcable, clear standard allowing all content to be moved with equal priority.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

If large service providers can determine what content is put in the fast lane and what content is relegated to the slow lane, what's to stop them from controlling the rate at which certain types of political content moves across the net?

Remember, it was large telecom companies that readily agreed to help the Bush Administration spy illegally on American citizens.

This issue is not downloading movies. That is a red herring. The real issue is whether or not large telecoms can make daily or hourly decisions about which content comes quickly to your computer.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context