Hi there,

Just thought I should share this…

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/23/xeni-on-rachel-maddo-1.html

It’ll make you laugh, or maybe cry. Anyway, at leasts it’s a break from health insurance reform (still wishing you the best of luck on that one).

Let’s face it, John McCain should not be allowed anywhere near any legislation affecting the internet.

Not only is he clueless, he’s financially compromised. It’s corruption at the highest level.

If his cockamamie bill manages to get to a vote, please oppose it. Better yet, maybe you could author an opposing bill guaranteeing net neutrality and right to access for all Americans. It would be good for our economy and democracy.

Google can find your Senator’s contact details (ie. “Maryland senators” turned up mine at the top.)

although I am going to have to restrict myself to your writings in the future as you are distractingly hot.

Seriously, Rachel in general and this segment in particular are examples of “the good fight” for american journalism. Keep it up please, for as long as you can stomach.

wave_

Also; Europe seem to be going anti-net neutral…

- Imagine a library or bookstore where you could check out all the Republican books immediately, but had to wait 30 minutes to check out books written by authors not given the Republican stamp of approval.

- Imagine a town with two newspapers, “The Conservative Trumpet” and “The Moderate Gazette”. In this town The Gazette is only allowed to deliver it’s papers after 8am during rush hour and the Trumpet is allowed to begin delivery fresh off the presses at 4am.

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/

Will McCain ever go away?

How can we get this information to the people who matter?

What a deceptive move to make. Net neutrality is what gives the public freedom. Having telecoms be able to alter, control, and decide when and how much people view information online is not. What irritates me the most is when telecoms were given taxpayer money in the form of subsidies to lay the infrastructure broadband internet and still push for this.

Maybe I’ve been reading wonkette too much, but it certainly seemed like he was creepily close to Vicki Iseman.

We are truly in the age of doublespeak.

I wonder what would be a name that appropriately reflects the intentions behind it:
“Internet Censorship Act”? “Internet Monopoly Act”?

Your suggestions?

For those concerned about telco’s going off-shore in response to a law, don’t be (unless it’s ridiculously badly written). Net-neutrality governs the telcos that provide access to the internet for consumers – it makes no difference where the content is hosted, but where the consumers are. It’s like talking about Walmart sourcing imported products to avoid consumer protection laws.

Assume for a moment that there is a US law making sure that telcos provide fair and balanced access to the internet for US consumers. It’s possible that a telco might move their head office to Lichtenstein or Djakarta, but they would still be subject to the law if they’re providing services within the US.

Net neutrality is about equitable routing, not serving.

The telco’s COULD send packets overseas, where less profitable packets could be “accidentally delayed” but the needless routing would be easily identified, and they would still be subject to a US consumer protection law if they’re providing services within the US.

Avid user from Canada

If non-neutrality starts to make it less practical to host servers inside the U.S. or which route through the U.S. are Houston and San Francisco going to continue to be host to large hosting facilities?

Businesses that rely on hosting with unmolested connections to the internet will have two options: 1.) pay a bribe to the ISP to have their packets left alone or 2.) move your tech backbone to another country.

Guess which one the biggest, multinational companies will choose?

If I was a shareholder I’d be screaming at them for inept management. This is absolutely brainless business planning. They’ve got secure revenue that they are not currently at risk of losing, and they want to create an entirely artificial risk with which to gamble that revenue against a completely unproven and severely uncertain new source of revenue.

Take risks with capital instead, you idiots. Invest in infrastructure, attempt to generate more broadband customers, spread connectivity to gain more customers. Run your business like a freaking business, not a craps game where everyone’s a loser, even the people who aren’t playing.

lets say if the us does do this, how can you block access when other countries don’t. It does not stop from people using proxy software to gain access to block sites, there is always a way around.

In conclusion, it makes the people thats trying to push this bill, and the companies that paying to make this bill enforced, ignorant and uneducated.

@Xeni: Loved the segment nonetheless, and I too primarily have the TV to watch Rachel Maddow (and in my case Keith Olbermann as well) these days. I hope you’ll get the chance to talk about copyright issues as well with Rachel in the future if you have not already; maybe get Cory Doctorow invited and make it a bash.