In These Times

Latest Comments view all 6

• • 26 Mar 07
  • 1:01 pm

  Historically the Telecomms have made these same arguments over and over and over-- that if government doesn't do this or that, then the network won't get built or won't be expanded. Well, every time that's happened, they've gotten what they wanted and then the network wasn't built or expanded BECAUSE they got what they wanted and the incentive to do it was then gone. Where's the broadband to every home we were promised in 1996? Obviously the CWA hasn't paid attention to historical precedent. The Telecomms scaled back shortly after that legislation was passed, and CWA workers lost jobs. And now …

  Posted to Not Neutrality

• • 27 Mar 07
  • 3:52 pm

  Yes, Richard Bennett is VERY vocal. But for every comment he makes there are just as many tech types who work with the protocols and networks every day in the trenches who don't agree with him. They just don't yell as loudly or as much as he does. Do a search on Slashdot if you don't believe me. For anyone reading this who doesn't know, Hands Off The Internet is an astroturf group funded by the Telecomms. Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet isn't just another cable TV spinoff. The Telecomms, if they want to survive, need to morph into …

  Posted to Not Neutrality

• • 27 Mar 07
  • 6:58 pm

  HOTI Dave, I am SO HAPPY that blondemike decided to defend you instead of me. ;-)

  Posted to Not Neutrality

• • 30 Mar 07
  • 11:41 am

  "If they did try to do so, antitrust laws would be enforced—which is one big reason why a specific net neutrality law is pointless. The real question is how to pay for building out the last mile. Verizon for one has spent billions to do so in just the past couple years—and yet you disbelief that the telcos will actually build new infrastructure?" First of all, the telecomms AND cable cos have already discriminated in the matter of VOIP, a competing business interest. And might I mention TELUS blocking the Union's site during a labor dispute? Laws are one thing, enforcement …

  Posted to Not Neutrality

• • 30 Mar 07
  • 12:52 pm

  "So black legislators are opposing the net neutrality bill for the same reason as the CWA: because chances are very good it would scare off the investments that would bring a) better access and b) more jobs by laying new fiber." No, minority legislators are opposing Net Neutrality because companies like AT&T and Verizon are hugely major contributors to groups such as League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and The National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL), who are the major sources of the vote for those minority politicians. So even though voting against network neutrality isn't in their best …

  Posted to Not Neutrality