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.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
WOW... just... WOW by Andrew N. on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 10:39am
It was hard to keep from vomiting during that. I'm all for net neutrality, but this is just stupid.
"Jesus wouldn't mess with our internet"?!?
Someone shoot me... but shoot them first.
That song deserves to have DRM.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
After about 5 seconds of the song by Anonymous on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 10:42am
I think that song just burried net nutrality for good :'(
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
heheheheheh! by Just One Guy on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 10:55am
I can't stop laughing. It's made to my own top ten list for this summer.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
college campuses by Devang on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 10:56am
Isn't the vote in congress over? 300something-100something.
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"We're Sending Our Love Down a Well" by Comboman on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 11:05am
I used to be in favor of net neutrality, but if idiot celebrities support it then maybe I'm on the wrong side. Although this could be a Reverse-AstroTurf-Attack; get pathetic people no one would want to be asociated with to support the opposing side.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Over the top by Moneyguy on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 11:08am
Isn't this just a bit over the top? Asking celebrities to comment on subjects they know nothing about. I mean the next thing you'll see is some bubble-headed celebrity commenting on foreign policy ...and people actually paying attention.
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?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 11:26am
Wow... Like I said before, You Lefties REALLY Crack Me Up!!!
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Panic on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 11:28am
hey, DRM would make a good band name, thanks! :P
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It was so stupid by Red on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 11:29am
That I actually made an account on their site and then commented on how fucking dumb it is.
I feel better now....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
WOW by Tyson on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 11:42am
Well that song really brightened my day... I was about to fall asleep at work when I clicked on that link... I almost fell out of my chair laughing...
Oh my what has this world come to... Please shoot me now....
LOL and you are right... DRM would make a good band name :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
All due respect to those who say by eb on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 12:26pm
that net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem, but when Bell South's CEO says he doesn't see why Yahoo can't pay him to load faster than Google, I think we do have a real potential problem.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Chinese Government Thinking at COX, Verizon et al. by Free unlimited Internet access for free people on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 12:56pm
Yup, that's right - all three parties in one sentence. They tell us what we can access, they dictate the price depending on what we access and these net censors do not allow us to run our own Internet services on our own computers. Just read the terms of service! What kind of Internet access and net neutrality is that where almost all Internet protocols are based on the client-server concept and we cannot run servers, like our own web server? Internet for dummies? Call it what you want, net neutrality died a long time ago. The debate about extra charges for Google and others is just the beginning of what will be a brain dead Internet. And where is Congress? They love the way how COX and Verizon play net neutrality. Perhaps the Chinese Government should get in touch with COX and Verizon.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by tecniart on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 1:15pm
Theres an article in spanish at La neutralidad de internet
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
wow by Kyros on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 1:17pm
I mean, their trying to do good, they just have no clie what their talking about and should be shot....but at least their trying to do good?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Jeremiah on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 1:31pm
I'd respond, but my comments still aren't showing up on TD....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by EdB on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 2:50pm
Hello Coward. Has anyone told you you're a retard? Everyone already pays for their connection. Some people pay less for a slow connection, and some people pay more for a fast connection, but everyone already pays for their connection. The issue is whether or not the telcos can charge you extra if you happen to have popular content online. To much for ya? Yeah I know. That's what happens when you're a retard.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by PopeRatzo on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 3:53pm
Wingers like Anonymous Coward never fail to embarrass themselves in public. He seems to forget that we PAY for this internet access, and not a little bit. I get my bandwidth because I fork over the dough for it. That's what pays for those "little blue boxes". Millions of people like me paying 50 bucks a month. For that price, I want to be able to get the same speeds out of youtube that I do out of Amazon.
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Over the top by Random Schmuck on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 4:07pm
Personally, I prefer the more accurate term "Digital Restrictions Management."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: knee jerks & wingers by Moneyguy on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 4:38pm
PopeRatzo,
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Anonymous Coward on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 5:14pm
OK... last attempt at educating you simple minded, open source, hippie types:
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…
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: by Dan on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 5:29pm
"you simple minded, open source, hippie types"
The fact that you said that more or less completely invalidates anything you just said.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: by 3rd Grade on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 6:54pm
You learn something new everyday ...
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?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Over the top by elmlish on Jun 13th, 2006 @ 8:46pm
My favorite expansion of the TLA DRM, is "Digital Rights Mismanagement"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: by ebrke on Jun 14th, 2006 @ 8:22am
Actually, I'm paying quite a bit more. Where is anyone paying less for the same service they got 5 years ago?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: by ebrke on Jun 14th, 2006 @ 8:27am
And another thing--then let ME pay my ISP for the content I am consuming, which actually is NOT more than it was 5 years ago, since I don't circumvent DRM and don't download stuff illegally. But if I were using way more bandwidth than I was 5 years ago and if I am over the limit allowed by my provider, then let me pay the bill for what I am using. I have no objection at all to that.
Why can't the telcos upgrade their infrastructure as a cost of doing business?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Parched on Jun 14th, 2006 @ 9:12am
You right-wingers crack me up. Never addressing issues, you resort to name-calling and generic, broad statements like "things cost money". Damn if we don't have a case of "Attack of the Coulter Clones" on our hands. You, like your fellow clones and role-model, are entertaining but otherwise useless in intelligent debate.
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Brother Rabbit on Jun 14th, 2006 @ 1:46pm
"Jesus wouldn't mess with out internet"
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!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: by Tom on Jul 26th, 2006 @ 1:26pm
"Bottom line, this is the real world... you're not sheltered in your university lab anymore with your leftie professors."
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"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment