3 votes

LEAKED: The Internet Must Go



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I wouldn't classify this as humor People might think it's a joke

Humor isn't its reason for being, that is, to entertain. It's purpose is to inform, namely, arguments against internet service providers offering fast-lane treatment to corporate customers.

Edit: thanks for the post. :)

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Good Lord ! A half hour video?

I get that it's humor, but the way it starts I can't spend 1/2 hour watching this.

I give a +1 for the OP, but the creator needs to learn about editing things down.

BS

BS. This is NOT a leaked video. This is somebody's slick propaganda.

The camera angles. The obvious actor. The cheezy 'cool video'.

I agree...

Slick propaganda in favor of stripping away property rights and replacing them with government regulation and power Lobbying.

But if you're against it, then you must be willing to put the poor little children in danger just so they can do their homework.

You beast!

Think of the children!

;)


http://youtu.be/Pp1MAMkIa6A#t=23m34s

Against Net Neutrality by Stephan Kinsella
http://archive.mises.org/15068/against-net-neutrality/

Net Neutrality: Unwarranted Intervention by Fernando Herrera-Gonzalez
http://mises.org/daily/4432/

Seems to me the lobbying came from corporations,

nicely getting the government (via bought-off politicians) to take away the citizens' right to provide for themselves.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Sure

They got regulated, ie cartellized, now that they reaped the monopoly rent the public is annoyed. They will be even more cartellized with legislation they wrote, which will infringe on even more liberties but do nothing 'the people' actually want. The worst case would be a full on government monopoly by the feds socializing the internet altogether. But that won't happen either.

All they need to do is allow anyone to provide any data service they want, in any manner they can sell, period. If the ISP's didn't have a cartel they wouldn't consider screwing their customers, and if they did they take it in the shorts.

But of course the providers don't want actual competition, and the spooks sure as hell don't want to have to infiltrate thousands of competing providers, and the politicians paid off by both sure as hell don't want that.

So there will be a 'net neutrality' or 'net freedom' bill which will actually make for more rent for ISP's so they can pay more to politicians. The bill will restrict news content, enhance ip (ie socialized business costs), further 'regulate' the isp's which will just make it all the more impossible for any competition. They will probably outlaw mesh solutions while they are at it.

The MSM will tout this as a great victory for the consumer, and the consumer will be the ones taking it in the shorts. Likely anyone trying to tell the truth will be labelled an information terrorist.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Take the problem of remote areas having poor or no internet access:

Remote Indonesian Village Creates It's Own Fast Internet Connection

Small UK Town Lays Its Own Fibre Broadband:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Broadband-UK-Fiber-DIY-Fibe...

Small Canadian Town Creates its Own Gigabit Internet Service:
http://testinternetspeed.org/blog/small-canadian-town-create...

But I have to agree with you on the corrupt lobbying practices that attempt to create monopolies, take this next example:

Sometimes just the threat of competition is enough.
Want 50Mbps Internet in your town? Threaten to roll out your own:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/10/want-50mbps-inter...

Okay, in your example, the court ruled in favor of the

town. Highlighted in the video was an area in NC where a community likewise came together and provided its own service... and it was outlawed. Apparently there are now laws against citizens acting on their own behalf in 19 states.

I've spent most of my life as a defender of capitalism - but I've had to accept that what we have is not free-market capitalism. Kalle Lasn's book Culture Jam was eye-opening re one of the developments in our history that changed the dynamic between govt, corporations, and the people: the Supreme Court Case Santa Clara County v. the Southern Pacific Railroad. I'm with Lasn. (FYI, also founder of Adbusters Magazine, he coined the term "Occupy Wall Street" - not that he expected it would become a global movement.)
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1155081!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/founders9n-1-web.jpg

These days, the lines are so blurred, I don't know what I'd call myself... except disillusioned. Depending on the issue, I could end up on anyone's side. And, yes, I did frown to find myself siding with Nancy Pelosi re an amendment to the Constitution to limit God-granted, inalienable human rights to... human beings.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir