This seems like scare tactics to me. I'm not sure how selling a higher CIR is going to prevent the usability of other sites.
I'm not even sure that it will make a difference. Of course don't these proposals make the FCC in charge? > -----Original Message----- > From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:33 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: A better explanation of the Bill in the US to End the Internet > > With the help of Republicans in Congress, mammoth telecommunications > companies are fighting to restrict your internet freedom. > > Imagine, wanting to donate money to a charity and not being able to open > the > nonprofit's web page because of the charity's inability to afford the > dominant internet provider's fees required to make the page efficient? > Imagine the millions of life-saving dollars these charities will lose if > lobbyists get their way? What if your child is sick, and you can't gain > access to a support group's page because the support group can't afford > the > fees? Or even scarier, imagine not gaining speedy access to a politician's > views because the specific provider is against his or her ideology? > > http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/35557/ > > "Will the internet in the United States become, in the words of AT&T > (SBC) CEO, their company's private "pipes"? Or will it remain, as the > Supreme Court cited in 1997, "the most participatory form of mass > speech yet developed"? These two very different perspectives reflect > what's at stake in the growing fight now in Congress over the > internet's future." > > Yes, for those in the US that don't know it, the Internet has been > hailed for it's freedoms, the very freedoms that those in government > now wish to remove. > > of course the spin doctors have several ways to phrase this, from just > normal 'capitalism' to Corporations just protecting their investments. > > But let's call it what it really is: Greed, and A Desire to Control the > Medium. > > [How has the internet -- so diverse and unwieldly -- fallen into their > hands? The answer is (of course) the Bush administration. Heavily > lobbied by the cable and phone giants, the Bush Federal Communications > Commission has been eliminating the rules that required the internet > to operate in a nondiscriminatory manner.] > > That's right, here's the US President at work again. > > But I'll let you read the rest for yourself, it's an enlightening > article. And if anyone can find evidence where the article's > statements are false, please do let us know. > > Whether the bill has been passed or not, approved or not, or is before > congress the fact remains that it is in the making and the wheels are > swiftly turning to make it law, and for the good of us all (those that > own any of the involved telecom companies, or those on their payroll > in the Bush Administration are understandably excluded), that must > never happen. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:205849 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
