Sing A Song Of Propaganda For Net Neutrality
from the you're-NOT-helping dept
Oh please, please, please, please, please make this insanity over net neutrality stop. Last night, we pointed out how two DC newspapers had ridiculous editorials that had misleading or outright false statements against the concept of net neutrality. We noted that both sides are stooping to ridiculous levels, obscuring the real debate. A few weeks ago, we pointed out how silly it was for the "pro" net neutrality crowd to trot out people like Moby in support of net neutrality. However, today the "celebrity endorsements" went to ridiculous levels. Somehow, unfortunately, the pro-net neutrality astroturfing PR firm has put me on their press release list. I've explained to them that I have no interest on being on the list, but they still bombard me with useless press releases every day. The third one this morning (yikes) is about how some well-known singer songwriters have banded together (I kid you not) to write and record a song in favor of network neutrality. Go ahead and listen to it here if you can. While they say it's "tongue-in-cheek" they also say "it's scary... 'cause it's true." Except that it's not. It's full of hyperbole about what a break in net neutrality would do. It does nothing to improve the debate -- and does plenty to distract from the actual issue again.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WOW... just... WOW
"Jesus wouldn't mess with our internet"?!?
Someone shoot me... but shoot them first.
That song deserves to have DRM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
After about 5 seconds of the song
[ link to this | view in thread ]
heheheheheh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
college campuses
If the telco's want to offer video, they can overbuild first and offer the fiber to home they promised. Allowing QoS for ALL video/voice over IP may not be a bad thing either. Some freedom in managing the network has to be allowed for.
Also, some freedom over net neutrality will have to be given to certain ISP's like universities. Mine prioritizes realplayer packets for video conferencing, and is a grinch when it comes to upload bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"We're Sending Our Love Down a Well"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Over the top
On a technical note: When writing more songs, do you think the songwriter will use "D-R-M" or "Digital Rights Management"? I think DRM gives itself more to a Rap style. While Digital Rights Management has more of a Country & Western feel. Comments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hey... I've got an idea, let's all "not" bathe for a month, smoke pot, beat on pans, and, listen to these "artists" entertain us. ;-)
Grow up people, those little blue things humming in the ILECs POPs (those would be routers) that enable your mind-numbing-content... cost money. If you want an interface above OC-3 with QoS for VoIP, someone will need to cough up capital.
BTW, Mr. Minneapolis, FDDI peering points are crap. IPTV will not be traversing them in case your wondering. Stick to your coffee shop & gophernet Junior.
Gotta go… I have a PETA and Anti-War protest to attend. :-0
BTW, Mr. Minneapolis, FDDI peering points are crap. IPTV will not be traversing them in case your wondering. Stick to your gophernet Junior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It was so stupid
I feel better now....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WOW
Oh my what has this world come to... Please shoot me now....
LOL and you are right... DRM would make a good band name :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All due respect to those who say
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chinese Government Thinking at COX, Verizon et al.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's funny to hear from the locksteppers who somehow got it into their heads that this is a partisan issue, ignoring the fact that it's only thus because the big telcos are paying off the Republican legislators who are in power. They pay off Dems too, but at the moment, they don't matter.
If we lose Net Neutrality, we will lose one of the most unique institutions that has emerged in any of our lifetimes, the open internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Over the top
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: knee jerks & wingers
Are you feeling alright? I'm concerned because you actually took a swipe at Democrats. And in almost the same breath you bashed the Republicans. Moving toward the right, are we? (Sorry for the dig, Pope, but I'm just surprised we agree somewhat on this issue.)
Because all knee-jerk pinko liberals want to have a hug, then spend some money on a frivolous government program to promote "Net Neutrality" to the gay homeless spotted owls, while the rich evil corporate right wingers want to screw the poor into paying for corporate bandwidth to promote christian family values.
Net Neutrality needs to be preserved, but this goes deeper than telcos buying off a few politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I realize you pay for the broadband connection. In fact, you're likely paying less now than you did 5 years ago. However, you are now pulling down w-a-y more content. Those bits & bytes consume bandwidth (you socialist don't think anything has a price) which (get this) COSTS MONEY!!
Let me try to break this down to where a Nat can understand. Cisco/Juniper, et al... charge for upgraded equipment (odd thing this capitalism). The ILECs, after paying money (which again you likely can't understand due to Mommy & Daddy's coddling) are attempting to create revenue generating (likely too big a concept for you) svcs… ala IPTV, VoIP, etc. This "investment" needs to generate a return (try to steal one of your hippy friend's Econ 101 books to figure this out). So... why should the ILECs upgrade their networks for your mind-numbing-content for free... when they could instead be selling their own services and therefore providing a dividend/return to the shareholders (many retirees) who actually do something useful with it. Although you likely want to increase the double taxation rate on dividends too.
Bottom line, this is the real world... you're not sheltered in your university lab anymore with your leftie professors. Let's t-r-y to understand that the ILECs net profit margin is no where near the fat cats your defending (GOOG, MSFT, etc..). In fact, they’re barely at a profitable level with shrinking voice revenue and can only now begin creating a viable business after finally killing the VC supported idiots with no technical or business knowledge. So... try to use the brain you're sooo proud of (before someone outsources your sorry a$$ for half the cost and a better product) and realize that you’re once again on the wrong side of an issue. Now go find your friends at their latest protest march…
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The fact that you said that more or less completely invalidates anything you just said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't know name calling invalidated arguments.
So if I say, "I'm rubber your glue, whatever you say, bounces off me and sticks to you." Does that invalidate your invalidation of AC's statement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Over the top
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why can't the telcos upgrade their infrastructure as a cost of doing business?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Unfortunately, these "net-neutrality artist-activists" seem to be following your lead.
Who knows, it's worked on a mindless-public so far. The Bush administration is ample proof of that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Point taken. Wow, name dropping Jesus for marketplace sake is probly the most corrupt and blasphemous thing I have heard from the music industry ever...
And what was that crap about Britney Spears???
Come on?
Thanks for a good laugh too Mike. That song was hilarious!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But wont handing over the net's strength (its independence and chaos) to megacorp marketing and popular brain washing programming essentially be providing YOU with a shelter to hide from hippie types and things like higher thought?
And btw you are way to obsessed with money. Money is easy to get, afterall this is the US and you're a white devil.
Tom aka white devil
"NOW GIMME YOUR IPOD 'FORE I BUST YOU IN THE GRILL"
[ link to this | view in thread ]