Anti-Net Neutrality Astroturfer Exposed 152
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Ever wonder about all those groups claiming Google had a 'search monopoly' (as if there are no other search engines), or worse, coming out against Net Neutrality? CNet has a story about a shady DC lobbying group called LawMedia Group, being paid by Microsoft and Comcast, that is behind many of these attacks. That said, it's a mystery why they weren't able to pay more authoritative groups than the American Corn Growers Association or the League of Rural Voters to weigh in on technical matters. As a computer geek from corn country, I wouldn't solicit their opinion on tractor repair, let alone Internet policy."
They know a lot (Score:5, Funny)
The American Porn Growers Association is very aware of the issues... oh, wait, you said corn, nevermind.
Re:They know a lot (Score:5, Funny)
You act as if the two can't be combined, I would beg to differ.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
She thinks mah tractor's sexy
It really turns her on
She's always starun' at me
When I'm chugging along
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't that be exclusive exclusive exclusive or?
xxxor?
Shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
There was an attempt to limit disinformation campaigns by lobbyist groups but it was shouted down by vocal opposition from a large grassroots movement.
Re:Shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are corporations allowed to control and destroy things like legislative process and public political awareness?
Can you believe the Simpsons have been on for almost 19 years? That Bart, he's so funny... And the Cubs are still in first place! And that guy...what's his name? He might win 8 gold medals...
Does that answer your question?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
I am just as shocked as you, but I have to wonder "Why do Corporations have the same free speech protections as real people?"
Um, who do you think owns a corporation and decides on what to say regarding it? The underpants gnomes?
Re:Shocked! (Score:5, Informative)
People who are not liable for anything the corporation says on their behalf?
Re:Shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
If a large, non-corporate company did the same thing, would it make any difference? Sure, the people who owned it would be responsible, but what difference would it make? Nobody's done anything illegal. Nobody's getting sued or taken to court. They look silly, but they would look silly whether it's a corporation or not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
bullhockey!
libel and slander are illegal.
This was a libel and slander movement against google and the american public.
Re: (Score:2)
Libel and slander are civil torts. Let Google sue if they think it'll benefit them. Or put together a class, and sue them yourself. Don't just sit there like a bump on a log, do something if you think you've been harmed.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations can be sued for libel and slander just like a person or a non-corporate company.
Re: (Score:2)
bullhockey!
libel and slander are illegal.
This was a libel and slander movement against google and the american public.
Unfortunately I doubt any libel or slander occurred, Weasels have a way of adding a "we're afraid this might happen" at just the right places to be able to commit almost libel or slander on a regular basis. like I just did.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you heard? Corporations legally are people... and their votes count for a helluva lot more than yours and mine.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not fair! Soylent Green should get a vote too.
Who do you think keeps re-electing Robert Byrd?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A corporation is owned by an unthinking unfeeling mob that doesn't have an moral accountability.
An individual is morally aware. A mob is not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct. The U.S has great freedom, a free speech. And government cant control who can speak and who doesn't, but they can control who says what by what way. There is big "cartel" on U.S, media corporations and government. When government does something what people does not like, the media corporations does not tell the truth, usually they dont even release any information, mayby somewhere middle in paper on small article, just scratching the surface, because they need to publish the information if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Gee...I guess this changes everything.....
So..if the McKinsey Global Institute creates a "study" whereby the assumption being that offshoring all jobs is profita
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, your comment has helped me see a new side to this problem. When wealth and military might grow to such extremes and concentrations, they begin to work against the freedom of everyman, but everyman has gained some wealth and feeling of protection and power from the military as well and so it is easy to convince he to subjugate his
Re:Shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
In light of such an insightful post I would just like to point out that John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan that will create millions of good American jobs, ensure our nation's energy security, get the government's budget and spending practices in order, and bring relief to American consumers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shocked! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So there!
Am I an idiot? (Score:2, Insightful)
Can someone explain to me why Comcast would be paying lobbyists to "slam Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent and promised penalties" ???
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of King, the Boston-area activist who defended Comcast on Net neutrality grounds in the Crimson, LMG seems to have been deeply involved in the publication of his op-ed. LMG's Esser appears to have sent him e-mail on February 20 saying: "Thank you again for helping with the op-ed. Pasted below, please find the final version. We will keep you posted on the issue."
I'm not sure what defending Comcast on Comcast on Net Neutrality grounds means, but I'd think the reality distortion fields could have fail the smoke test like a 1950's SciFi computer asked to solve an unsolvable problem, on that one
Re:Am I an idiot? (Score:5, Funny)
Conspiracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, this doesn't quite make the level necessary to be called "conspiracy." It's, unfortunately, just business as usual in both politics and the business world.
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Things like this are old hat to me. I run OS/2 and one of the reasons OS/2 failed was due to MS paid astroturfers posting in various forums about how much better Windows was then OS/2. :)
The saddest part was that even when the astroturfers were outed most people only remembered the negative posts, not that they were part of a propaganda campaign and should of been taken with a large grain of salt.
Had the same problem with magazines. Some database would be reviewed and you would get reviews like,
We couldn't get SMP working on OS/2, so even with one CPU it was faster then NT with 2 CPU's we fail OS/2 due to only using one CPU. People, especially the pointed headed CEO's would only remember the words fail. It is the same with net neutrality, even with lots of evidence of astroturfing, people will only remember that the corn growers association came out against net neutrality. The corn growers association must be neutral right
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Things like this are old hat to me. I run OS/2 and one of the reasons OS/2 failed was due to MS paid astroturfers posting in various forums about how much better Windows was then OS/2. :)
The saddest part was that even when the astroturfers were outed most people only remembered the negative posts, not that they were part of a propaganda campaign and should of been taken with a large grain of salt.
Had the same problem with magazines. Some database would be reviewed and you would get reviews like,
We couldn't get SMP working on OS/2, so even with one CPU it was faster then NT with 2 CPU's we fail OS/2 due to only using one CPU. People, especially the pointed headed CEO's would only remember the words fail. It is the same with net neutrality, even with lots of evidence of astroturfing, people will only remember that the corn growers association came out against net neutrality. The corn growers association must be neutral right
Part of that problem was also that IBM had signed M$ to produce some core applications for OS/2 to jumpstart the market. M$ reneged shortly before release, way to late to find other software companies let alone have time to develop.
DOUBLE conspiracy (Score:2)
now this, paying a company underhand for anti net neutrality fud.
excuse me, but if thats not conspiracy, i dont know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
Not much different than a Pro athlete getting paid to use equipment that he would only use because he's getting paid to use it; actually the athlete is more honest because he really competes with the sponsor's equipment, Jesse Jackson appearently doesn't even read the OpEd articles that are ghostwritten for him.
I think it would be nice if there were a law (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's rather wrong to put out a campaign for spreading information and point of view while concealing the source of such being expressed, or worse, deceiving the public by attempting to make the information come from independent or neutral groups, individuals or parties. Not only is it disingenuous, it's approaching fraudulent and potentially dangerous depending on the circumstances. Just as in the case of political campaigns and the like, the parties paying for such activities should be required by law to disclose that their clients are paying for this service.
The matter of public deception is bad practice and should be exposed and disclosed wherever it exists. Expressing opinions is important, but in the case of business and political interests, disclosure should always be required. Only private individuals deserve the right to privacy and anonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is it disingenuous, it's approaching fraudulent...
That ship has sailed. Why can a convicted monopolist avoid sanctions for this behavior? Microsoft = Fraud in many ways.
a vertiable smorgasbord (Score:2)
... Microsoft = Fraud in many ways.
In most ways, but since the licenses, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, disclaim liability or suitability of the software for any purpose, there are easier targets: the dipshits who bring MS products into a business or institution in the first place. The interoperability, maintenance, security and pricing problems have been so well documented that you'd either have to be functionally living in a cave (gross negligence) or ignoring the world around you (willful negligence) or intentionally pushing B
Re: (Score:2)
since the licenses, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, disclaim liability or suitability of the software for purpose...
As someone who has used MS products for not much more than 30 hours in the last 10 years: can you tell me what software does not disclaim such liabilities and suitabilities? I mean, regular software that does not cost millions of dollars per KLoC, of course?
the difference being ... (Score:2)
Most software does disclaim liabilities and suitabilities. That part is about equal, and that part probably could be overcome in court. But if you take your easy shots first, there usually won't be any hard ones. The easy way is to focus on the difference where it is a disadvantage.
The difference being that, in contrast, the other products actually work fairly well especially in regards to maintenance and interoperability. However, in shoot outs, MS products tend to get rated so poorly that some of t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
color me naive (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I believe that MS is still pro net neutrality. My understanding, and the summary is unhelpful to understanding, is that Microsoft is paying them for their attack on Google and Comcast is paying them for their attack on net neutrality. The same organization is paid for two separate jobs.
Re:color me naive (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that MS is still pro net neutrality. My understanding, and the summary is unhelpful to understanding, is that Microsoft is paying them for their attack on Google and Comcast is paying them for their attack on net neutrality. The same organization is paid for two separate jobs.
Correct. That's what the article is saying. The summary, is, as usual, very useless in regards to representing the actual contents of the TFA. The timeline says it all:
Timeline: Anti-Net neutrality, anti-Google lobbying efforts
February 2008: Email apparently sent to Mel King providing him with text of his pro-Comcast op-ed.
March 2008: Latino IT group sides with Comcast on Net neutrality
May 2008 (PDF): Latino groups ask Justice Department to investigate Google's "search monopoly." Also see press release (PDF).
June 2008: Latino IT group says it has "serious concerns" about a Google-Yahoo advertising deal
June 2008 (PDF): Corn growers ask Congress to investigate Google
IOW, no one is suggesting that Microsoft is anti-net neutrality except perhaps some poster here foaming at the mouth, as usual.
In case anybody isn't paying attention: Net neutrality is in Microsoft's best interests as an OS maker and as one of the Net's top three search engine providers. It is not in Comcast's best interests as they can make money from a lack of net neutrality.
what difference ? (Score:2)
regardless of for what you pay them for, its going to strengthen the company and better the work they do. therefore any amount paid to that 'company' is going to make that company's work in any field, including anti net neutrality work, better. they will be less worried about revenue, they will be able to pay better slanderers and so on.
additionally, that company is attacking google, which is
Re:what difference ? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure if this is accurate any longer. I've noticed new themes in the astroturfing on slashdot lately that stress the "approved application" model made famous by the smashing success that is Verizon's VCast.
Putting on my tinfoil for a moment, here's a scenario:
Microsoft negotiates a deal with the telecoms. The telecoms and Microsoft develop some new trusted computing abomination. Microsoft has then positioned itself on high ground for a coming crapflood of ISP lockdown software, being a platform for "trusted applications" that aren't "dangerous for the network" (hacker tools like encryption; Hi Brett! ;) ).
Microsoft "buries" Google, as Google has to negotiate individual and separate contracts with all the ISPs (which would have no requirement for fairness), telecoms get to collect tolls (and use the contract terms as bargaining chips in negotiations with Microsoft and the big four media).
As a bonus, this would destroy all open software on the internet, as FOSS couldn't implement whatever patent-encumbered-proprietary-secured-by-obscurity crapware that will be required to work with ISPs, and remain free as in speech.
I am no longer sure at all that Microsoft has anything to fear from the anti-net-neutrality club.
Re: (Score:2)
In case anybody isn't paying attention: Net neutrality is in Microsoft's best interests as an OS maker and as one of the Net's top three search engine providers. It is not in Comcast's best interests as they can make money from a lack of net neutrality.
I agree. I think the people who don't pay attention will also want to know why net neutrality is good for Microsoft and bad for Comcast. How about we shine that big flashlight on how the moneymaking goes:
- Comcast is in the business of providing internet connectivity.
- Comcast is in the business of providing streaming video to your TV.
- Comcast competes (for your eyeballs) with video delivered via the internet you buy from them.
Comcast has a clear interest in dropping, delaying and distorting packets from
Re:color me naive (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More information on Law Media Group (Score:5, Informative)
Search Monopoly (Score:2)
Re:Search Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone with a good understanding of the law and this particular situation, how would one make a good case against Google?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I can only do it because I have a good friend who's a hardware geek. (I'm software, personally.) However, I do think that those who either know how to build their own or have access to somebody willing to help don't deserve to complain about the high prices of off-the-shelf computers, or the Microsoft Tax.
I also agree that doing so doesn't stop Microsoft from abusing their position. It does, however, get you out from under their thumb.
Re: (Score:2)
on the other hand 2-3 years ago you couldn't even buy a computer without Windows on it.
No further comment necessary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
GMail is a bit different, but I'm pretty sure I could rig up a python script t
Re: (Score:2)
Antitrust law doesn't prohibit monopolies. It prohibits monopolization. To run into antitrust problems, you don't have to have 100% of a market. Google is powerful enough in some segments of search that antitrust issues would not be surprising.
It is quite clear most people don't know squat about monopolies or monopoly abuse in the legal sense. I'm not saying you don't, just that it is clear most people don't. That said, if you're concerned about Google running afoul of antitrust laws and want to be taken seriously you need to clearly present two things:
Re: (Score:2)
Why get some groups without a reason involved? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should you get interest groups that have no interest in the case you're trying to press into your boat? Because they're cheap, and because they have the ear of the politician.
Some corn growers association may not know jack about the internet, or even care about it. But they are a group of people some representative can't ignore. Especially when he's from a corn growing state.
On the other hand, getting them to forward a letter from you under their name to their rep is cheaper than trying to get a group that actually has some interest in the internet to do it. What company that deals with the internet, aside of telcos and huge players, have an interest in getting rid of net neutrality? To get some internet company to oppose it, you have to pay it about as much as you have to pay to buy it out, because they know their very existance depends on NN.
Now, imagine the reverse and you're the rep of some computer software association. In comes a letter asking you to put some pressure on your rep to allow the planting of some foreign crop that some hippies consider a "threat for our environment", but that could tenfold their crops (and revenue). How expensive would you say is it to get you to put their letter in a new envelope and send it on its way?
Of course they get dubious groups into their boat that have nothing to do with the issues. First, they don't know jack about what's going on. Second, it doesn't affect them. And because of all that, they're cheap to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone sees just his risk. Bittorrent users fear the blocking of ports and protocols for obvious reasons. Free speech activists fear the preference of "official" media. Content providers fear the additional cost of delivery and/or preferred treatment of bigger providers who can afford it.
What bothers me most about it is that without net neutrality, the majority loses on the expense of a few companies that want a stranglehold on one of the last free media we have. I guess I'd sign up for the second group.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they get dubious groups into their boat that have nothing to do with the issues. First, they don't know jack about what's going on. Second, it doesn't affect them. And because of all that, they're cheap to buy.
Seems like the name for these kinds of organizations ought to be "Special Disinterest Groups."
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, but you ain't worth that much.
If you represent some sort of association that has some sizable portion of an interest group behind you, though...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, but you ain't worth that much.
If you represent some sort of association that has some sizable portion of an interest group behind you, though...
That's easy enough, associations are cheap and Email lists only a little more; start about a bit slow, get Suzie Chainletter to forward to all of her friends and you got it made!
Y'see... (Score:3, Insightful)
It does. So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Ever wonder about all those groups claiming Google had a 'search monopoly' (as if there
> are no other search engines)...
Google has a search monopoly in the same way that Microsoft has an operating systems monopoly: they have most of the business. Note, however, that having a monopoly (even a total one) is not in and of itself illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It does. So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Taking advantage of your monopoly is illegal though.
Taking illegal advantage of your monopoly is illegal.
Re:It does. So what? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/maintain.htm [ftc.gov]
While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market.
A common complaint is that some companies try to monopolize a market through "predatory" or below-cost pricing. This can drive out smaller firms that cannot compete at those prices. But the lower prices a large retailer offers may simply reflect efficiencies from spreading overhead costs over a larger volume of sales. Because the antitrust laws encourage competition that leads to low prices, courts and antitrust authorities challenge predatory activities only when they will lead to higher prices.
Because as we all know... (Score:3, Insightful)
tractor repair and internet policy go hand in hand.
anti-astroturfing campaign (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Jan and Dean (Score:2, Informative)
"It's the little old lady from Pasadena..."
He got the idea for the song when a car dealership became notorious for claiming that all their cars were driven by a "little old lady from Pasadena", and therefore in allegedly prime shape.
RTFA - Microsoft is NOT against Net Neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
"LMG is one of several firms we work with in D.C.," Microsoft spokesman Jack Evans said. "It's no secret that we oppose the Google-Yahoo deal and that there's been a great deal of opposition to it by advertisers, publishers, consumers, and legal experts." Evans points out that Google has hired a constellation of D.C. lobbyists and public relations groups to tell its side of the story.
The SlashDot poster acts like this is a single issue lobby. If you believe that, then you have no concept of lobbiest firms.
Microsoft has worked against anti-net neutrality, as they would have the LEAST to gain from ISP lock in, as they have no ISP bundling deals, which you can't even say about Yahoo or Google. (Toolbars anyone?)
So how did this get to be about Microsoft? Because they hired a firm to oppose the Yahoo-Google deal?
They didn't hire them to DO ANYTHING ELSE... Move on to Comcast and other ISP nut balls that are working against net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think if someone could figure out a way for the net to be neutral to M$ and unneutralized to Google they'd be all over it, but the real point is these media groups are just whores and will do your best friend and your worst enemy at the same time as long as they get paid.
Corn Growers? (Score:4, Informative)
Hey, come on! (Score:2)
What a shock (Score:2)
Gee, leftists like SCLC and Jesse Jackson are part of phoney grassroots organizations? Where is DocRuby to tell us only Republicans are crooked?
They're all crooked. The art of politics in America is dealing on things you don't care about so you have clout on the things you do care about. This, I think, is the natural evolution of a representative system - Iowa farmers don't care about coastal wetlands, and Californians could give a shit about farm subsidies. So there's the basis of a deal. Oh, the far
AU: Telstra to pay to get its people on boards?!? (Score:2)
Australia's [defacto] monopoly telco - Telstra - has a big internal promoter, who was heard (giving a talk on ABC Radio National, in a recent month) promoting the idea of Telstra offering to pay thousands of dollars to organizations, if one of their (ie, Telstra's) employees gets elected to the organization's Boards.
On one level, it's a chance for skilled Telstra people to "contribute" to their communities, but (I think) doing also so, disrupts the democracy of the organizations and makes them beholden to (
So who do i believe? The author of this article? (Score:4, Informative)
from their response column, by a poster who has no history and joined the same day:
Most of you I am sure won't remember who Declan is... He was a prominent supporter of Microsoft in a newsgroup called "Appraising Microsoft" That group was active in the mid90's. That group was one of many spearheading the push for the justice department to "corral" Microsoft and prevent them form screwing up the computer industry. Alas as most of you are using Microsoft Windows, that group and many others failed. And as a result we have Microsoft as the operating system on the majority of computer world wide. And now we are at least 10 years behind in the software industry. Also Declan is attributed to starting and failing to stop a rumour regarding Al Gore. Declan was the sycophant reporter on Air Force One, traveling in the entourage of George Bush. It was Declan who misquoted Al Gore and ran off with the rumour that Al Gore Created / invented the internet. And although Declan has been laughed out loud at by the people who are aware of him and his writing, many of you who are not involved in the computer industry from the early days, are unaware of his actions. Declan has zero credibility in the information oped world, then as he does now. Unfortunately Declan will continue to create havoc in the press due to the fact that most of the public are unaware of his sycophantic habits. He will inexorably crawl up the butt of anyone with a buck to offer to his retirement fund. And since he writes about the information age, most people are blindly unaware of the facts and opinions that vary greatly in that arena. since most are unaware of the facts, they accept the writings of a few.
Sigh.... and Declan makes a living writing about this rubbish. Rubbish he is somewhat responsible for.....
A quick google of "declan al gore internet" gets me this, among many other results.
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/10/39301 [wired.com]
This is confirmed by the wikipedia entry, which has not been edited for quite some time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Declan_McCullagh&action=history [wikipedia.org]
So, this guy is telling me the extent of the astroturfing? The guy who helped swiftboat gore?
Could you get more recursive? (Score:2)
So you're using google to check on whether this anonymous article about LMG swiftboating Google by the guy who allegedly invented swiftboating is legitimate? Dude, that's so recursive it's positively fractal.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're using google to check on whether this anonymous article about LMG swiftboating Google by the guy who allegedly invented swiftboating is legitimate? Dude, that's so recursive it's positively fractal.
not quite.
wikipedia has open records, which help in determining whether there was "media engineering" following his op-ed.
this apparently was not the case
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about whether the OP was wrong or right. Just commenting on the strangeness of the times.
Re:So who do i believe? The author of this article (Score:2)
Hey, if he pulled that off, he sure has the credentials to know what he's talking about...
Wow! Genius! (Score:2)
Simply incredible. I want a job there!
neutrality (Score:2)
Net neutrality can mean many different things. It can mean neutrality towards customers. It can mean neutrality towards service providers. It can mean neutrality towards protocols. It can mean max-out-the-line usage. People need to be specific about which they mean when they talk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
?
No, it can't.
I think you're either confused, or you're being disingenuous. If it's the former, google is your friend.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it can't.
Bullshit. Wikipedia alone lists four different definitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality [wikipedia.org]
I think you're either confused, or you're being disingenuous. If it's the former, google is your friend.
It's you who is "confused". Get your facts straight before trying to correct people.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't really correcting you. I've seen your comments in the past, and I know that you're not ignorant as to what NN is or isn't. I was suggesting that you were being less than genuine.
You know very well what we're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Definitions_of_network_neutrality [wikipedia.org] . It's a silly list, really. In particular, "Access to all legal content, but not via means that violate agreed-upon terms of service" is not any kind of net neutrality at all. The only two that are
anything independent? (Score:2)
As long as the only source for this is Declan McCullagh, I don't believe it. King probably hung up on him because he was being rude.
Is there any other story on this? Any confirmation?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can understand your point of view. You like your porn. It's understandable.
ISPs are stifling technology because they are the kid who invites you over to his house after he gets a new game. He never lets you play, but he wants you to stay and watch him.
That's the kind of asshat the ISPs are. Until we can force the ISPs to treat all packets equal, we lose.
Do you know of a technology to defeat sandvining?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1st point: Wanted: Writers for D.C. tech lobby group, secrecy mandatory [cnet.com]
2nd point: Comcast acknowledges that it hired people to take up room at an F.C.C. hearing into its practices. [portfolio.com]
Re: (Score:2)
what do you microsoft fanbois have to say about this, we really would like to hear.
Since those Microsoft fanbois are likely paid by Microsoft, it's not hard to imagine...