I wish I was frantic enough now to get my thoughts out. See, I need to have the sense of logically clear impending danger before I can nurse an idea into writing. That's a ridiculous impediment for a person composed of equal parts levity in its finer sense, and an incessesantly overbearing thought process. So here I sit. I realize that at this point, no one reads this. That's fine - my own fault. I need people to Join Me. Off to find some more like-minded individuals.
I hate overly sweet barbeque sauces. You should too.
In the mean time, consider something I wrote about Ol' Teddy boy.
(Yes I made the graphic.)
Net Neutrality (according to Ted Kennedy)
You might think that he's talking about how cable companies shouldn't restrict our internet access. Maybe it seems like he's saying everyone should be able to get on the internet. That might be a nice and happy concept, but why should the government step in? Senator Sununu said that any government impositions can do nothing but stifle innovation. The very name of the legislation he's pushing, Net Neutrality, conflicts with the agenda it contains. He's talking about how internet freedom should be unrestricted, specifically from corporations, and he implies the government..., while a quick search(1) describes net neutrality as a regulatory bill.
America was built on competetive behavior, Mr. Kennedy, why are you so quick to say we should be free from it? Attempting to grant equality is of Marxist politics. I am free of an agenda, Mr Kennedy, though you suggest the people each have their own, just like you. You say the internet lets you communicate with me, but your campaign through Youtube (should i say google) accomplishes the second definition of communicate in the dictionary,... to spread, as a disease. I'm 15 years old. I'm against Net Neutrality and any other form of subtle government information control. If the House and Senate or any local community passes Net Neutrality, God help us as the panapticon controls our thoughts. It's a given in this covert plan that the added control of the people only applies to internet users, so you must also get internet to everyone. The faster our internet, the faster subvergent evil dominates. As a demonoid user, a freethinking but modest soul, and an American... please don't support anyone who pushes the oxymoronic net neutrality. This just takes us towards the governmental misery in the U.K. and China(2). (Net Neutrality is already in effect there, homes)
I'd be fine with his speech if the Chinese flag were behind him. But see, it's the American flag he's sitting in front of.
To recap... by the way... FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOW REGULATE AND CONTROL THE INTERNET THROUGH YOUR PROVIDER.
I encourage whoever reads this to evaluate for themselves(3) the implications of the government's actions. Aren't we doing fine already? You have internet, don't you? Why would the government have to force every internet provider to transmit an annual report on:
1. Their ability to transmit any and all types of internet content to the end user over broadband. (How do you judge someone's ability to transmit? You look at what they've sent. This may mean the government could freely access data including any type of activity on the internet. This is that hateful big brother who moved out, except he could come back at any time with a wicked wedgie for you)
2. The abilities of their competitors to transmit conent
3. The prices and terms of sending information via broadband
4. The number of people who send and receive information via broadband connections
5. the "state of competition" among those people.
What is the state of competition? It's an open-ended phrase seruptitiously tacked to the end of the proposed Congress Bill. In closing, discern your own meaning for Net Neutrality. It's a pretty use of alliteration, yet a serious crime and hamper to innovation and prosperity, even if the privacy scares turn out to be unfounded. To me, it seems sad that so many are under the impression that net neutrality gives us more freedom.
(1)www.publicknowledge.org/
(2)http://youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=6UlCXXZTTh8&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3D6UlCXXZTTh8%26mode%3Drelated%26search%3D
"i'm in china (temporarily) & i truly think that the general pop. here are limited in resources, w/the only 3 internet companies they have. the repercussion? they don't get all the facts. & what will happen to north america and the rest of the world if you start limiting access. limiting facts, separating the haves and have nots, etc.."
(3) http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/s2917-109.pdf
( bottom of page 8 and on)
You might think that he's talking about how cable companies shouldn't restrict our internet access. Maybe it seems like he's saying everyone should be able to get on the internet. That might be a nice and happy concept, but why should the government step in? Senator Sununu said that any government impositions can do nothing but stifle innovation. The very name of the legislation he's pushing, Net Neutrality, conflicts with the agenda it contains. He's talking about how internet freedom should be unrestricted, specifically from corporations, and he implies the government..., while a quick search(1) describes net neutrality as a regulatory bill.
America was built on competetive behavior, Mr. Kennedy, why are you so quick to say we should be free from it? Attempting to grant equality is of Marxist politics. I am free of an agenda, Mr Kennedy, though you suggest the people each have their own, just like you. You say the internet lets you communicate with me, but your campaign through Youtube (should i say google) accomplishes the second definition of communicate in the dictionary,... to spread, as a disease. I'm 15 years old. I'm against Net Neutrality and any other form of subtle government information control. If the House and Senate or any local community passes Net Neutrality, God help us as the panapticon controls our thoughts. It's a given in this covert plan that the added control of the people only applies to internet users, so you must also get internet to everyone. The faster our internet, the faster subvergent evil dominates. As a demonoid user, a freethinking but modest soul, and an American... please don't support anyone who pushes the oxymoronic net neutrality. This just takes us towards the governmental misery in the U.K. and China(2). (Net Neutrality is already in effect there, homes)
I'd be fine with his speech if the Chinese flag were behind him. But see, it's the American flag he's sitting in front of.
To recap... by the way... FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOW REGULATE AND CONTROL THE INTERNET THROUGH YOUR PROVIDER.
I encourage whoever reads this to evaluate for themselves(3) the implications of the government's actions. Aren't we doing fine already? You have internet, don't you? Why would the government have to force every internet provider to transmit an annual report on:
1. Their ability to transmit any and all types of internet content to the end user over broadband. (How do you judge someone's ability to transmit? You look at what they've sent. This may mean the government could freely access data including any type of activity on the internet. This is that hateful big brother who moved out, except he could come back at any time with a wicked wedgie for you)
2. The abilities of their competitors to transmit conent
3. The prices and terms of sending information via broadband
4. The number of people who send and receive information via broadband connections
5. the "state of competition" among those people.
What is the state of competition? It's an open-ended phrase seruptitiously tacked to the end of the proposed Congress Bill. In closing, discern your own meaning for Net Neutrality. It's a pretty use of alliteration, yet a serious crime and hamper to innovation and prosperity, even if the privacy scares turn out to be unfounded. To me, it seems sad that so many are under the impression that net neutrality gives us more freedom.
(1)www.publicknowledge.org/
(2)http://youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=6UlCXXZTTh8&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3D6UlCXXZTTh8%26mode%3Drelated%26search%3D
"i'm in china (temporarily) & i truly think that the general pop. here are limited in resources, w/the only 3 internet companies they have. the repercussion? they don't get all the facts. & what will happen to north america and the rest of the world if you start limiting access. limiting facts, separating the haves and have nots, etc.."
(3) http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/s2917-109.pdf
( bottom of page 8 and on)
No comments:
Post a Comment