[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts

I'm on the list, Scott, you don't need send the message twice. 

On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 01:43 -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> 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?

The last I heard, Estonia was refusing to adhere to those mandates.
Sadly, not all EU member states nor EU politicians have the same
dedication to Internet freedom as some of them.

> 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?)

Does that have *anything* to do with this (off-topic) discussion? Or are
you just bringing it up to try to raise up a "socialist menace"? Do you
assert that this is because of cheap access to the Internet?

>      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.
Did I mention Finland? I don't believe I ever brought it up. What's the
relevance of your statement?

I still don't see how providing cheap Internet access *leads to* these
abuses in a causal way as you stated:

> > 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part