Website review: Save the Internet Blog
Someone discovered this in Politics
•17 reviews since Apr 25, 2006
politics, internet, save-the-internet
•savetheinternet.com/blog/
People who like this website
- Kaboomm
Los Angeles
- revolute
Los Angeles
- ill-turn-native
Long Beach
- JustWayne
Ventura
- lunaglo
Laguna Woods
- criticalchaos
San Diego
- Stephen57
California
- yopp
California
- judyinnv
Las Vegas
- Gaber
Santa Clara
StumbleUpon is the best way to discover great web sites, videos, photos, blogs and more - based on your interests.
Everything is submitted and rated by the community. Discover, share and review the best of the web!
Reviews of this website
RoseD1st rated 7 weeks ago- Comcast is not alone on the list of wannabe gatekeepers. Cox Communications has joined the ranks with news today that it is degrading and blocking customer file-sharing in the same deceptive manner. The news follows an exhaustive study by the Max Planck Institute, which tested the connections of 8,175 Internet users around the world. According to Institute spokesperson Krishna Gummadi, they found conclusive evidence that Cox blocked file-sharing connections alongside Comcast in the United States. Help the Neutrality Bill Become Law Robb Topolski, the former Intel engineer who first revealed Comcast's blocking last year, told the Associated Press that the Institute's investigation was the most authoritative study so far of this type of Web discrimination. These results confirm what's already become obvious to many Internet users around the country: Cable companies simply can't be trusted to protect the free-flowing Internet. Despite widespread public outrage and an ongoing investigation of Comcast, these companies persist in thinking that Internet content can be shaped and manipulated like their legacy video services. "This harmful practice appears to be spreading through the marketplace," Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott said. Indeed, as a high-speed Internet connection becomes our portal to all things media - from email to user generated video and music - the old media regime can resist the temptation to get in the way. These corporations have built their empires upon controlling the ebb and flow of information in America. The Internet, however, is about free choice and user-generated content - all being shared without the need of content gatekeepers or middlemen. They want to be more than just a window to the Web, and have proposed a closed scheme of Internet fees and filters that allows them final say over which ideas make it to the top of the heap. These moves by Comcast and Cox are further evidence that the threat to Internet freedom is real; the need for baseline user protections more urgent than ever.
- vconscious rated 3 months ago
- Do you want corporate America to decide what you can do on the internet?
- impediment rated 5 months ago
- The hearing is part of the FCC's ongoing investigation into Comcast's blocking of Internet traffic. But there's much more at stake. We are at a critical juncture where it will be decided whether we have a closed Internet controlled by a small handful of giant corporations, or an open Internet controlled by the people who use it. Comcast wants the former -- to dictate which Web sites and services go fast or slow or don't load at all. And they're backed by the other would-be gatekeepers at AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner.
- seaturtle rated 5 months ago
- Your Internet: Open or Closed?
- Hexter rated 10 months ago
- Unlike hands-off this site allows you to comment and that a good thing really.
- Semeiotike rated 11 months ago
- I would like to end my business relationship with AT&T, does anyone know of a viable alternative? Which mobile phone company is best?
- jesuit rated 16 months ago
- "Net Neutrality" or how to destroy the internet infrastructure. If Net Neutrality is so important why not cell phone neutrality or television neutrality. I have to pay for the bandwidth I use however if a website wanted to pay for the bandwidth instead of me paying for it I'm all for it. All this crap about the Telecoms "squeezing" websites that don't pay is typical socialist thinking. There is not a limit to the amount of bandwidth and someone has to pay for it. Finally if the ISPs limits the speed of certain websites I would simple switch ISPs. I do believe that alowing for websites to pay for bandwidth will increase that total bandwidth on the internet and thats a good thing.
- SchreiberBike rated 21 months ago
This issue has not been resolved and is still very important. Write a letter to your representatives. I sent this to Dick Durbin a few moments ago: Senator Durbin, My views are generally very similar to yours and I appreciate your leadership as you represent Illinois. I am concerned that you have not yet announced your views on the issue of network neutrality. I received your email dated June 6, 2006 which clearly showed that you understand the issues, but which did not announce your intentions. I believe that the Internet is an opportunity for real growth in democracy. Witness that Iran has recently limited access to the web for its citizens. The choice before us is not between government regulation and an open playing field; it is between a regulated open playing field and domination by a few telecom giants. As the Internet becomes more and more important to the future of democracy, we can not allow it to be controlled by big businesses I encourage you to make every effort to make network neutrality the law in the United States. Thank you,
- 14Peacenow rated 22 months ago
- Sen. Ted Stevens' desperation is beginning to show. With his telecommunications legislation in the DC doldrums, the good senator from Alaska has resorted to spamming his colleagues with phone company propaganda. From his seat at the head of the Commerce Committee, Stevens is emailing around the results of a "bipartisan poll," which, according to the senator's spin, proves beyond a whisper of a doubt that Americans love his legislation and hate Net Neutrality. One problem though. This supposedly objective poll is a complete sham. It was paid for by Verizon Communications and carried out by Washington lobbying and consulting firms that boast major phone and cable companies as clients. Stevens fails to mention this in his email. The poll's questions are so slanted towards one side of the debate that no serious pollster, scholar or journalist would dare touch the results. Here's a sampling lifted straight from the poll: Which of the following two items do you think is the most important to you: Delivering the benefits of new TV and video choice so consumers will see increased competition and lower prices for cable TV? OR Enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee? As Matt Stoller wrote, "the rest of the questionnaire is similarly structured along the lines of `do you want lots and lots of pie or would you like a kidney infection'." What's particularly amazing is that 17 percent of the respondents chose the kidney infection. But that's no deterrent to the many Astroturf groups that shamelessly front for the phone companies. They have trumpeted the phony survey as proof positive that Net Neutrality is a non-issue for Americans -- dismissing the more than a million Americans who have written Congress, called their representatives and turned out at dozens of pro-Net Neutrality events across the country. In August alone, these legitimate grassroots actions convinced seven senators to announce their support for Net Neutrality -- carrying forth momentum against Stevens' deeply flawed legislation. In the Astroturfers' version of reality, though, the future of the Internet is best left in the hands of the telco lobby -- conveniently, the same corporations that pay the Astroturfers` bills. Go figure. The public doesn't really care about Internet freedom, they say -- and hey, they've bought a poll so they must be right. As Jeff Chester wrote in his commentary in The Nation today: [N]either the poll nor the press release issued by Stevens revealed, as the Wall Street Journal did today, that Verizon had paid for the study. The role of Verizon is not surprising, given that the poll was developed by the Glover Park Group lobbying shop (along with Public Opinion Strategies). Glover Park-which is run by such high-level Democratic Party advisers as Howard Wolfson, Joe Lockhart and Carter Eskew-has been helping Verizon in its efforts to scuttle broadband policy safeguards since 2005. So whom should you trust on Net Neutrality? We'll leave that decision to you. But be wary of phone company pollsters and spamming senators claiming they know what you want.
