Comments on: Bill Thompson on NNeutrality Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Peel uxna Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:24:51 +0000 |

By: Cage hyqc Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:50:09 +0000 |

By: Mayweather tatj Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:49:17 +0000 |

By: Jack La ytqo Sat, 13 Apr 2013 23:18:56 +0000 |

By: ACS Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:56:21 +0000 Travis

You raise a very interesting issue in regards to fair use on the wiki-paedia. Could you please clarify the exact course of events in regards to the nature of the material uploaded to wikipaedia and the manner of the use. For example, were the Time magazine covers used in the extract for time magazine or for another purpose? Also – from where were the Time magazine covers copied?

Im sure someone will get some answers to you as soon as possible.


By: Travis Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:08:41 +0000 Hello,

My name is Travis B., I am a 2L law student in San Antion, Texas and also a frequent contributor to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is allegedly at the forefront of “freeing up the world’s information” but the reality is much more troubling. Users with little or no legal training interpret Copyright law strictly and delete information which clearly falls within the defense of fair use. The most recent case is of administrators and Jimmy Wales agreeing to delete thumbnails of hundreds of Time Magazine covers.

I write to ask if your organization or your users may be aware of a list of intellectual property right lawyers which possibly would be interested in taking a couple of hours and clarifying intellectual property rights for these users. This brief appeal could go directly to Jimmy Wales himself on Wikipedia.

I felt like this and your legal foundation was probably the best place to start inquiring.

Thank you in advance,
Travis B.

By: Barbie Sat, 18 Feb 2006 03:30:43 +0000 Oh SHinano me love ur blog! here is video of me. I hope internet be fast enough so you can see it… god damn verizon sons of bitches! banzaiiii!!!!!! me wish there was UDP multicast so no bandwidth clog and ted turner not rule world.

By: Hold On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 04:55:31 +0000 I just noticed, Bush axed Powell last year in favor of this guy:
that explains a lot.

By: Smart Informed Engineer Fri, 17 Feb 2006 04:45:17 +0000 NOTE TO AMERICAN PUBLIC: The telco lobby is trying to decieve you. They are releasing reports such as this one
to divert the public’s attention away from the fact pure IP networks can replace our traditional phone and cable system WITH LITTLE INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE. A small fiber optic cable is enough to support phone, video, and any infomation service you want for a medium size town. They want total control of your living room. Profit is only a small part of it, its the fact that the want to make sure the poor side of town cannot talk to the same people as the rich side of town. They want to make sure that the cost of broadcasting a video message stays high, so only the wealthy may have their say. Sound fair?

By: Smart Informed Engineer Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:18:13 +0000 YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CONFOUND THIS ISSUE. You telecom people are thieves. You are stealing our constitutional rights and selling them to the highest bidder. YOU WILL NOT BE A PART OF THIS AMERICAS FUTURE.

By: Smart Informed Engineer Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:46:29 +0000 Its almost as if phone and cable companies don’t really have the right to exist as something seperate and distinct from digital networks. They certainly don’t have the right to limit competition form IP based networks( which is what they are doing by buying it out ). Maybe FCC policy should be based strictly on digital networks( which are easy to tax, manage, and measure; a bit is a bit ). Powell, make the network stupid already… weve been subjected to Murphy Brown now give us something back.

By: poptones Thu, 16 Feb 2006 04:53:42 +0000 Uh, yeah.. you’re talking about exactly the sort of device I mentioned – a tivo type appliance. That only works if the peer knows about the broadcast and is prepared to receive it. That doesn’t do anything at all for google or yahoo or sputnik7 (are they still around?) and their streaming video feeds unless the “peers” you are talking about are proxy servers in the last mile – neighborhood caches of content. And once you have neighborhod caches of content the streams never have to go over the primary internet again and the content can be delivered to living rooms via pretty much any protocol without causing greater burden on the isp.

Charging premiums to broadband content providers is an end run around that – allow isps to provide essentially the same quality of service to their users (ie same aggregate bandwidth to the main pipe) without having to invest in the equipment that is really needed: more and widely distributed proxy caches. End result is anyone who wants to serve content now has to go through one of the “blessed” content providers or their packets get no priority in the queue. Rather than encouraging a universe of small providers competing fairly this encourages centralization and consolidation. Too much trouble to negotiate special deals with roadrunner and warner and cox and all the other hundreds of local isps? Form licensing pacts and pay one fee to our sanctified “rights” organization and we agree not to drop your packets whenever we feel like it – essentially fostering the creation of giant “media brokers” on the internet.

By: Smart Informed Engineer Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:05:39 +0000 You can cache the data at peer nodes. No anchovies please.

By: poptones Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:05:29 +0000 That only works when it’s a realtime broadcast. If I’m watching the same video you are watching but a half hour behind you, that’s still two streams. How many “broadcasts” on the internet are realtime? They exist, but they’re most certainly in the minority.

UDP might work great in such a case for keeping subscribers tivos stocked with on demand video, but it doesn’t get you out of the one peer/one connection mode if you want to VOD stream old music video shows, movies, or even porn dvds.

By: Smart Informed Engineer Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:24:11 +0000 NOTE TO BRAINWASHED MASSES:

UDP multicast will allow wide area video streaming at low bandwidth cost. For instance: if I wanted to stream a live video to All of europe the brainwashed engineer thinks: “hmm, if this guy wants to stream to 100,000 people that means we have to carry 100,000 streams across the atlantic, hmm thats 80kbs * 100,000; golly gosh darn we’ll never be able do that.” Smart, informed engineer says: “NO, you idiot! with UDP multicast we only have to carry ONE stream across the atlatic, it will be muticast when it arrives at the peer. now go order me a pizza.”

By: Jessie Boss Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:07:55 +0000 Damn it Jessie, I told you not to post to public lists! If you do that one more time Verizon is going to cancel your h1b visa and you can go home, and you know what that means… its back to 1 bag of peanuts instead of two.

sincerely, Bob Boberson
Middle Management
Verizon, Inc.

By: jessie Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:11:03 +0000 im from im a college student.I have read your “code”(chinese version) just now.
very good,really.btw,my major is Law.
i thought u understand net and law.
my english is not very good.
u idea is similiar with homeland did meet some problom which lead me into thinking about it.
u must know msn space,micsoft deleted one’s space in china.i know it must be the goverment’s idea.I thought this action is needed,but …
stop here now.

By: anonymous Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:24:05 +0000 The only contact information for Mr. Lessig in the contact page on this site is a phone number for press inquiries? I was only going to suggest that Mr. Lessig might be interested in commenting on this amendment to California Legislation AB 307 that (if passed) will require that technology education plans (required to receive public funding)

“shall include a component to educate pupils and teachers on
ethical behavior in regards to the use of information technology, the
concept, purpose, and significance of a copyright, and the
implications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing.

It doesn’t say anything specific about the content of this “ethical behavior” education requirement, or who would be responsible for approving it, but something to look into.

By: Carter's Swamp Rabbit Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:37:22 +0000 The people who turn my stomach are these bastards who think our freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly are terroritories to be conquered. These sysadmins who think it is ‘their job’ to argue for the fat pig corporations who think this kind of thing is routine make me sick. Lippard, get a fucking life you are not going to make millions in real estate. FUCK YOU!

By: poptones Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:30:53 +0000 Things stream already stream pretty well in the US and even better in iceland, korea, ect.

Apparently you’ve never been a pacbell customer.

Things do not already stream all that well. But it shouldn’t matter because there’s no real need for “streaming” content save for two examples: real time conversations (which are inherently low bandwidth) – and to prevent people from “copying” media in permanent fashion onto their hard drives. Of course, anyone who knows how to use mplayer knows the absurdity of that argument – therefore there’s only one use of realtime data streaming that cannot be replicated by a tivo like model of “broadcast” wherein the “subscriber” simply chooses what programming she wants and watches it at her leisure.

But this isn’t about the internet being so clogged with realtime streams it’s impossible to maintian proper qos – that’s already handled. This is about those who control the “last mile” – the people who own the routers that control the flow of data to end users in their living rooms – turning off the flow of data or prioritizing it as suits their demands. Thus, if google is not a “partner” with your cable company you get an artifical scarcity of google’s data compared to the flow you get when you hit

This is entirely a last mile issue: ISps want to be able to provide “premium” services even when the creators of those services did not create their services to be “premium.” They want to bottle services they did not create and charge end users extra for those most in demand not because it costs them more to deliver them but simply because they can. It’s essentially usurping google’s business model to better suit their own antiquated system of tiering access to content rather than access to services because the “flawed” nature of the internet undermines their monopoly on providing those services.

By: icecow Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:42:14 +0000 [rant/zero revision warning]
My stomach curls when I a lot of stuff on the internet.

Watching a libertarian speak his good intentions on every issue is consistant and believable even if he isn’t in position to achieve his intentions. Then again, it seems there is a pattern in history that most good things came from men who stood on the shoulders of other men and produced something excellent only to have their face ripped off by an industrialist type. e.g.: tesla, armstrong, galileo(heh). Hell, so it turns out edison didn’t invent the light bulb, and alexander bell didn’t invent the telephone. The perception that most achievements, inventiveness, and innovation are solo acts by individuals is completely blown out of proportion. It’s a cultish mantra that has been in the US culture for a long time. It is a notion I believe grew out of the ‘TV years’ between 1950 to 2000 when a relatively few number messages were repeated over and over on the airwaves. Before 1950 propoganda was less centralized, and since the internet boom around 2000 cultural ideas will again become less centralized.

Now (guestimately-speaking) a third of the population get their information from a wide range of sources, and the other two thirds (roughly 200 million) are still under the centralized propoganda of network television.

The Telecoms are trying to capture those two thirds of people by reverting the entire information distribution system back to a firehouse of a limited number of cultural ideas i.e. propoganda and manipulating them to be a source of revenue stream (think matrix).

There is nothing ‘they’(the telecoms) are doing for ‘us’. The whole network was financed by a long history of people paying monthly utility bills. There’s nothing about a surge in stock investments that can take away this network from the people of the US. It will always be a community infrastructure. They don’t have a ‘right’ to invent services to finance a network they want to keep for themselves leaving the public with their thumbs up thier asses. the term ‘added-value’ is no more than an euphonism for monetizing something that costs nothing and billing people to line pockets. Are traffic lights something the government should charge us a la cart based on the worth of their ‘added value’? What would that be, $3 a light with poor people taking their chances?

But watching someone go around thanking fastfood cashiers for reminding them to order fries, conspicuously sign up for extended service plans, and talk about how efficient the US health system is compared to the health system in South Africa is just unnatural. Absolutely nobody thinks that way. Yet people tend to give a person like that the benefit of the doubt. I mean who is to say what another person believes?

When I read three blind mice’s posts I, personally, do not believe that he believes anything he writes. He writes on a technical level that suggests he’d know why his own arguements are complete bunk. Continuing to point his flaws out only leads to a circular arguement that ‘establishes two equal and opposing sides’, which is BS.

The internet we have now has improved vastly over the last 10 years and is continuing at an incredible rate. There is nothing stopping the US from widening the pipes 20x to 100x what we have now. As we all know other countries have those speeds now.

There’s a few central issues here. Do we want a 0.001% (a few thousand) of the US population controling our media, web/software development, and innovation? or do we want 1% (a few million willing US citizens) to be involved.

Do we really need 0 tolerance QoS in an age where people come home from work and watching shows on their tivo? What is so neccessary about watching a sitcom in ‘real time’ when the show was recorded weeks earlier? Where did this time deficit come from where we have to worry about milliseconds? It’s all BS. Things stream already stream pretty well in the US and even better in iceland, korea, ect.

All of three blind mices arguments are BS pure and simple. Who is he convincing? He’s only convincing others they need to explain it too him.

He should go tell his crap to the corporations, but he’d only be preaching to the choir. For some reason they would agree.

By: poptones Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:10:46 +0000 You first…

By: Tim Lee's Backburner Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:45:19 +0000 poptones,

stop flaming this comment forum. Please take your uncouth manners elsewhere.

yours truly,

Tim Lee’s Backburner

By: poptones Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:19:17 +0000 just because you are not educated enough and lack the experience to understand my arguments, it doenst make it my fault.

LOL. Whose fault is it you can’t form a coherent sentence?

Happy valentines day!