Watch video for info spread the word
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcRdWdJpbTA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcRdWdJpbTA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcRdWdJpbTA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcRdWdJpbTA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
== '''SAVE NET NEUTRALITY''' ==
''' WATCH THIS 7/01/08 '''
'''<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns]&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns]&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>'''
<a href="http://wiki.gbatemp.net/wiki/skins/common/images/button_italic.png" target="_blank">http://wiki.gbatemp.net/wiki/skins/common/...tton_italic.png</a>
Virgin has been trying to calm the internet revolt against them for saying they would limit users' internet access for commercial ends, stating "We're not suggesting there will be any denial of access to those who don't want to pay." and then going on to confirm their previous anti-net neutrality statement: "VM could offer content providers deals to upgrade their provisioning if they want to ensure best access to to broadband subscribers.". They did not comment on their earlier statements about putting non-premium content providers on their slower "bus lanes".
A BT spokesperson gave us the following statement:
"... Unlike Virgin, we think the bandwidth we provide our users should be equal for all services and if services like the BBC iPlayer put too much strain on the bandwidth, both ISP's and content providers should educate the users on that issue so that users know when and why they may have to upgrade their account for more bandwidth if it exceeds 'fair use' terms. We always bear the consumer in mind first and have no plans to prioritize traffic from third party companies. We welcome all the Virgin customers who left because of the net neutrality issue and offer 'neutral' bandwidth."
Update: Sky has now also responded to us with a somewhat vague statement: “As video usage grows, it's natural that there will be a debate about the best way to invest in additional capacity. We want to be one of the UK's biggest and best ISPs so we'll always be guided by the desire to meet customers' needs for a high-quality internet experience."
Keep Virgin from destroying the internet...
The new CEO of Virgin Media, Neil Berkett, has openly stated in an interview that they think net neutrality is “a load of bollocks” and claimed they're already doing deals to deliver some people’s content faster than others. They would then put websites and services that don't pay Virgin in the "slow lane", meaning those sites would load slowly and cause most users to give up using them, feeling forced to use whatever Virgin wants to push through their network.
This is not the first time an internet provider infringes upon net neutrality, but it is the first time that an ISP so brutally states that they simply plan to limit internet access to a television-like system in which the access provider completely regulates the content you have access to.
Virgin Media has over 3.5 million customers in the UK and the real danger is that when they start applying this system to their network, all major internet providers around the globe will soon follow the trend. Because this is exactly what major ISP's have been wanting to do for years.
But we can stop it.
If the masses of the internet react against this, we will set an example of what happens when one provider tries to take away our freedom. We will make it very clear that any ISP who tries to infringe upon net neutrality will see its popularity go down the drain because the users don't accept it. And we'll see to it that only the providers who care about safeguarding our internet freedom have our support.
Speak out in any way you can and spread the word.
<b>POST BANNER ON PAGE FOR SUPPORT </b>
[crimg]MentalChaos:19473715[/crimg] [crimg]MentalChaos:19473715[/crimg]
<b>MORE INFO May 27, 2008</b>
Big phone and cable companies are trying to eliminate Net Neutrality, the principle that protects our ability go where we want and do what we choose online.
More than 1.5 million SavetheInternet.com supporters are fighting to keep the Internet free and open for everyone.
Learn more about an issue that unites the Christian Coalition, Teamsters, PETA, video gamers, the ACLU, Gun Owners of America and many more.
Comcast is not alone on the list of phone and cable companies that want to become the Internet's gatekeepers. Cox Communications has just joined the ranks with news that its also blocking the free-flowing Web.
The Threat is Real
How does this threat to Internet freedom affect you?
Such corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:
In May 2008, the Max Planck Institute released a comprehensive study that found both Comcast and Cox Communications to be deceptively blocking access to peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.
In October 2007, the Associated Press busted Comcast for blocking its users' access to peer-to-peer file-sharing networks like BitTorrent and Gnutella. This fraudulent practice is a glaring violation of Net Neutrality.
In September 2007, Verizon was caught banning pro-choice text messages. After a New York Times expose, the phone company reversed its policy, claiming it was a glitch.
In August 2007, AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as lead singer Eddie Vedder criticized President Bush.
In 2006, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.
This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation.
What they've got planned
The threat to an open internet isn't just speculation -- we've seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. These companies, even, have said as much about their plans to discriminate online. According to the Washington Post:
William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.
He's not alone. Ed Whitacre of AT&T told BusinessWeek:
Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
By far the most significant evidence regarding the network owners' plans to discriminate is their stated intent to do so. As Verizon's Ivan Seidenberg told the Wall Street Journal:
We have to make sure they don't sit on our network and chew up our capacity. We need to pay for the pipe.
Network Neutrality advocates are not imagining a doomsday scenario. We are taking the telecom execs at their word.
Who will be affected?
Small businesses -- The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.
Innovators with the next big idea -- Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for the top spots on the Web.
Bloggers -- Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips -- silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.
Google users -- Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee another search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.
Ipod listeners -- A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service it owns.
Online shoppers -- Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices -- distorting your choices as a consumer.
Telecommuters -- When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.
Parents and retirees -- Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.
Political groups -- Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their Web sites and online features to work correctly.
Nonprofits -- A charity's website could open at snail-like speeds, and online contributions could grind to a halt if nonprofits don't pay Internet providers for access to "the fast lane :excl: :excl: :excl: :excl:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcRdWdJpbTA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcRdWdJpbTA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcRdWdJpbTA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcRdWdJpbTA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
== '''SAVE NET NEUTRALITY''' ==
''' WATCH THIS 7/01/08 '''
'''<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns]&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns]&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>'''
<a href="http://wiki.gbatemp.net/wiki/skins/common/images/button_italic.png" target="_blank">http://wiki.gbatemp.net/wiki/skins/common/...tton_italic.png</a>
Virgin has been trying to calm the internet revolt against them for saying they would limit users' internet access for commercial ends, stating "We're not suggesting there will be any denial of access to those who don't want to pay." and then going on to confirm their previous anti-net neutrality statement: "VM could offer content providers deals to upgrade their provisioning if they want to ensure best access to to broadband subscribers.". They did not comment on their earlier statements about putting non-premium content providers on their slower "bus lanes".
A BT spokesperson gave us the following statement:
"... Unlike Virgin, we think the bandwidth we provide our users should be equal for all services and if services like the BBC iPlayer put too much strain on the bandwidth, both ISP's and content providers should educate the users on that issue so that users know when and why they may have to upgrade their account for more bandwidth if it exceeds 'fair use' terms. We always bear the consumer in mind first and have no plans to prioritize traffic from third party companies. We welcome all the Virgin customers who left because of the net neutrality issue and offer 'neutral' bandwidth."
Update: Sky has now also responded to us with a somewhat vague statement: “As video usage grows, it's natural that there will be a debate about the best way to invest in additional capacity. We want to be one of the UK's biggest and best ISPs so we'll always be guided by the desire to meet customers' needs for a high-quality internet experience."
Keep Virgin from destroying the internet...
The new CEO of Virgin Media, Neil Berkett, has openly stated in an interview that they think net neutrality is “a load of bollocks” and claimed they're already doing deals to deliver some people’s content faster than others. They would then put websites and services that don't pay Virgin in the "slow lane", meaning those sites would load slowly and cause most users to give up using them, feeling forced to use whatever Virgin wants to push through their network.
This is not the first time an internet provider infringes upon net neutrality, but it is the first time that an ISP so brutally states that they simply plan to limit internet access to a television-like system in which the access provider completely regulates the content you have access to.
Virgin Media has over 3.5 million customers in the UK and the real danger is that when they start applying this system to their network, all major internet providers around the globe will soon follow the trend. Because this is exactly what major ISP's have been wanting to do for years.
But we can stop it.
If the masses of the internet react against this, we will set an example of what happens when one provider tries to take away our freedom. We will make it very clear that any ISP who tries to infringe upon net neutrality will see its popularity go down the drain because the users don't accept it. And we'll see to it that only the providers who care about safeguarding our internet freedom have our support.
Speak out in any way you can and spread the word.
<b>POST BANNER ON PAGE FOR SUPPORT </b>
[crimg]MentalChaos:19473715[/crimg] [crimg]MentalChaos:19473715[/crimg]
<b>MORE INFO May 27, 2008</b>
Big phone and cable companies are trying to eliminate Net Neutrality, the principle that protects our ability go where we want and do what we choose online.
More than 1.5 million SavetheInternet.com supporters are fighting to keep the Internet free and open for everyone.
Learn more about an issue that unites the Christian Coalition, Teamsters, PETA, video gamers, the ACLU, Gun Owners of America and many more.
Comcast is not alone on the list of phone and cable companies that want to become the Internet's gatekeepers. Cox Communications has just joined the ranks with news that its also blocking the free-flowing Web.
The Threat is Real
How does this threat to Internet freedom affect you?
Such corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:
In May 2008, the Max Planck Institute released a comprehensive study that found both Comcast and Cox Communications to be deceptively blocking access to peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.
In October 2007, the Associated Press busted Comcast for blocking its users' access to peer-to-peer file-sharing networks like BitTorrent and Gnutella. This fraudulent practice is a glaring violation of Net Neutrality.
In September 2007, Verizon was caught banning pro-choice text messages. After a New York Times expose, the phone company reversed its policy, claiming it was a glitch.
In August 2007, AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as lead singer Eddie Vedder criticized President Bush.
In 2006, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.
This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation.
What they've got planned
The threat to an open internet isn't just speculation -- we've seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. These companies, even, have said as much about their plans to discriminate online. According to the Washington Post:
William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.
He's not alone. Ed Whitacre of AT&T told BusinessWeek:
Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
By far the most significant evidence regarding the network owners' plans to discriminate is their stated intent to do so. As Verizon's Ivan Seidenberg told the Wall Street Journal:
We have to make sure they don't sit on our network and chew up our capacity. We need to pay for the pipe.
Network Neutrality advocates are not imagining a doomsday scenario. We are taking the telecom execs at their word.
Who will be affected?
Small businesses -- The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.
Innovators with the next big idea -- Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for the top spots on the Web.
Bloggers -- Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips -- silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.
Google users -- Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee another search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.
Ipod listeners -- A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service it owns.
Online shoppers -- Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices -- distorting your choices as a consumer.
Telecommuters -- When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.
Parents and retirees -- Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.
Political groups -- Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their Web sites and online features to work correctly.
Nonprofits -- A charity's website could open at snail-like speeds, and online contributions could grind to a halt if nonprofits don't pay Internet providers for access to "the fast lane :excl: :excl: :excl: :excl:
