Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:10:41 -0400 Ted Smith <teddks@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 23:55 -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:33:10 -0400 Ted Smith <teddks@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 12:28 -0700, Martin Fick wrote:
>> >> If they couldn't do this, to stay competitive, they=3D20
>> >> would charge more money for everyone and you would=3D20
>> >> suffer more. Cheap internet access and "serving" is=3D20
>> >> not some inherent human right, so let's not complain=3D20
>> >> about the price of gas here. ;)  (unless it is to=3D20
>> >> propose ways to make tor use less gas...)
>> >>=3D20
>> >> -Martin
>> >
>> >On the contrary, it was my impression that we are here working on,
>> >contributing to, and using Tor because we believe that internet access
>> >is a human right. This includes end-to-end connectivity. Pricing a real
>> >internet connection (what is being referred to as a "business account"
>> >or the like) out of reach of common folk is equivalent to the overt
>> >denial of this human right.
>> >
>> >Am I misinformed here?
>> >
>>      I believe you are.  Martin is correct in that the surest way to kill
>> freedom on the Internet is to apply socialist economics to it.  It is
>> probably also the best way to ensure governmental abuses of users of the
>> Internet (see, for example, communist China or Cuba and, in the most extr=
>eme,
>> North Korea, where the Internet doesn't really exist, for all practical
>> purposes).
>
>You're conveniently ignoring countries like Sweden, Iceland, Estonia,
>where "socialist" Internet policies have resulted in some of the best
>environments of digital freedom. In fact, your list appears only to

     Am I, indeed?  Let me see now...would that Sweden and Estonia happen
to be the same Sweden and Estonia that are members of the European Union,
that lovely organization issuing various directives requiring member states
to institute legislation and regulation inimical to freedom on the Internet?
Like the legislation in Germany that has caused so much consternation on
this list?  As for Iceland, no, I'm not ignoring it, but I know nothing about
its Internet situation at present.  (But isn't this also the same Iceland that
has been uprooting and ejecting foreigners by virtue of revoking or refusing
to renew work visas en masse lately because their socialist programs have
run them so far into debt that they now have mass unemployment far exceeding
what is happening in the U.S. during the worldwide economic downturn?)
     BTW, do you remember when all of Finland's Internet access was funneled
through a single 56 Kbaud leased line, while mere universities all over the
U.S. were adding extra T1 lines to what they already had?  Worse yet, the
U.S.S.R.'s Internet access at that time was relayed through Finland, IIRC.

>contain countries that were oppressive and authoritarian *before* the
>Internet appeared, and is mostly composed of states which have attempted
>to limit Internet access to as few people as possible, if anyone. How do
>they exemplify countries with universal access to the Internet?
>
     I was using some of the strongest examples, of course, but I probably
could as well have referred to member states of the European Union, I suppose.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************