Your Psych Central access threatened?

i really don't see this as a personnal issue....anyone who uses the internet SHOULD and DOES have a dog in the hunt.....

Let me play devil's advocate here for a minute, because I can see a side to this argument that hasn't come up yet. I think we can all agree that it would be awful for companies to manipulate bandwidth to promote their business interests. But what if someone wanted to start a "family ISP" that blocked pornography from being pushed on its lines. It wouldn't be a matter of an ISP forcing someone to adhere to its interests in that case--it would be a matter of people paying specifically for a service that blocked certain content.

As far as I can tell, this law would make such a service illegal. Doesn't that actually restrict consumer rights in that situation? The government telling me that I can't have the service I want because it doesn't jive with their law?

naaa . . . there's software that's cheaper to run that tracks and restricts web sites and content . . .

beat me to it jennie, you type quicker than i do lol,

on most toolbars you can restrict the sites yourself that you dont want access to, it is explained step by step for you and is good for when your child, or children are browsing the net alone so why would you want to give someone else the power to take it from you? and remember this is big business we are talking about, they are in it for the money, plain and simple

Cheaper to run than what? If I buy a filter today, that's an added cost on top of my ISP. If I could subscribe to an ISP that does the work for me, then that would be cheaper. Also, many parents aren't as computer-savvy as their kids and aren't sophisticated enough to buy and install a filter that the kids can't get around.

Also, from a legal perspective, why should you get to tell me that buying a filter is good enough. Shouldn't I have the choice of subscribing to an ISP that meets my needs?

JustBen . . . you have a point . . . i'll give you that . . . but i don't think you have a GOOD point . . .

we are concerned about the monopoly

What monopoly?

You are detailed-oriented, huh?

I guess, I mean the quasi-monopoly. Big businesses like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner trying to push legislation meets their business needs that restricts access to the web for the public.

IMHO: I think this topic is worth letting those that want (or need) to vent about it to have their right to be heard and not have it taken apart by any one that not does not see it as the others do.... for those that cannot give SUPPORT (as we all have promised to do ) please back out and let's not turn this into something it was never meant to be.

People talk (vent) as to seek and find PeAcE from with in themselves..... so talk away.

LoVe,
Rhapsody -

for those that cannot give SUPPORT (as we all have promised to do ) please back out and let's not turn this into something it was never meant to be.

I SECOND THAT!!! If you don't like this Forum, than you don't need to read it or comment on it..simply walk away!! Let the ones that believe in it and want to share about it, do so..what is the harm in that?

((Hugs to all))))

Rhapsody and Liv28 . . . I do think JustBen is clarifying stuff.

It is possible there is nothing to fear. But, then again . . . I doubt it.

wasn't talking about JustBen, hon..talking in general..to everyone!! Trying to keep the peace..I just read the whole forum since yesterday..seemed to be alot of fighting over people voicing their opinions on a topic..shouldn't be like that..people should be able to come in here and voice their opinions without others jumping down their throat about it..you know?

no one is jumping down my throat.

you are always supportive (((((((((((Liv28)))))))))) . . . not everyone is so eloquent with words, including myself

wasn't nessarily talking about your throat either Jen..talking in general..lol..but should the need arise..you know me..anyways..we are getting off topic..AGAIN!! You were saying...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
jennie said:
Rhapsody and Liv28 . . . I do think JustBen is clarifying stuff.

It is possible there is nothing to fear. But, then again . . . I doubt it.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

CORRECT..... was not talking about BEN (or Jennie) - yours/his name just shows up for he was the last person to post before I replied.

LoVe,
Rhapsody -

it might be interesting for anyone who is interested to check and see where their Congress member stands on this issue. mine are for it. but i expected that. i checked anyway. i got some really fancy "political" talk from their aides.

are you guys telling me that someone else can decide what i can and cannot access. Will it be the same for us here in the uk?

allthegirls . . . it could, at the very least, slow your internet beyond you level of patience, especially U.S. web sites.

I liken it to the NetFlix company. You know? The one who says for xx amount each month you can order as many flicks to watch in your home as you like. After viewing, send it back and get another. Well... what has been shown to be a tactic is you can request them, but after a period of time (after the break in???) if you are an avid film watcher and requesting/viewing more than their average, well it seems their mail service happens to bog down and isn't able to send them to you as quickly as at the first.

You still get some service. The wait isn't worth the "regular" service.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
You are detailed-oriented, huh?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
You got that right. The devil is in the details, as they say.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I guess, I mean the quasi-monopoly. Big businesses like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner trying to push legislation meets their business needs that restricts access to the web for the public.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm really confused about this. Are we talking about the companies that own the infrastructure serving as gatekeepers to ISP's, or ISP's acting as gatekeepers to customers? I'd have a big problem with the former, and no problem at all with the latter. (If people want to go with a content-restricted ISP they should have the right; non-restricted ISP's would still dominate the market, though.)

according to savetheinternet.com faq's:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Rhapsody said:
IMHO: I think this topic is worth letting those that want (or need) to vent about it to have their right to be heard and not have it taken apart by any one that not does not see it as the others do.... for those that cannot give SUPPORT (as we all have promised to do ) please back out and let's not turn this into something it was never meant to be.

People talk (vent) as to seek and find PeAcE from with in themselves..... so talk away.

LoVe,
Rhapsody -

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

So, what you're saying is that it is not acceptable to offer a dissenting opinion and that, in any case, such an opinion is automatically unsupportive and, in turn, "taking apart" what others have said?

Note that I do not disagree with those above who advocate raising awareness of this issue. But I would have thought that by open debate, the issue might be more clearly elucidated. Instead, it appears dissent is to be supressed in much the same way the government would seek to control the internet, saying, "It is disloyal to disagree or to question." Who's threatening my Psych Central access now?

Is it so hard to discuss something like this without indulging in personal effrontery?

Anyway, back on the topic, those interested in this issue may want to check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation at http://www.eff.org/

Just to be clear, you're welcome to dissent -- as in any thread on PC. Others should also respect that not everyone holds the opinion and it's not "right" or "wrong" to have an opinion different than their own.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Rebound said:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Rhapsody said:
IMHO: I think this topic is worth letting those that want (or need) to vent about it to have their right to be heard and not have it taken apart by any one that not does not see it as the others do.... for those that cannot give SUPPORT (as we all have promised to do ) please back out and let's not turn this into something it was never meant to be.

People talk (vent) as to seek and find PeAcE from with in themselves..... so talk away.

LoVe,
Rhapsody -

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

So, what you're saying is that it is not acceptable to offer a dissenting opinion and that, in any case, such an opinion is automatically unsupportive and, in turn, "taking apart" what others have said?

Note that I do not disagree with those above who advocate raising awareness of this issue. But I would have thought that by open debate, the issue might be more clearly elucidated. Instead, it appears dissent is to be supressed in much the same way the government would seek to control the internet, saying, "It is disloyal to disagree or to question." Who's threatening my Psych Central access now?

Is it so hard to discuss something like this without indulging in personal effrontery?

Anyway, back on the topic, those interested in this issue may want to check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation at http://www.eff.org/

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Dear Rebound....

YES by all means share YOUR DIFFERENCE OF OPINION on this subject.... for that is what makes each and every one of us unique and I often look forward to hearing the different sides to all the story / subject talked about on PC.
I think what happened here was just a misunderstanding of what I was trying to express.... for what I was stating was for those few that don't even want this matter to be talked about right now - and not those that just hold a difference in opinion.

Are WE cool with this now.....................

LoVe,
Rhapsody -