Bush's Master Plan for the Internet

Bush and his Machiavellian minions will no longer put up with you roaming free into dangerous territory on the internet. You need to be corralled, electronically tethered, kept away from sites promoting conspiracy theories -- in other words, information the corporate media, the official U.S. Ministry of Disinformation, does not want you to read or see. It's now increasingly obvious the Bu#es want to lock us up in a hermetically sealed informational box and throw away the key. All the information they consider worthwhile will be pumped in through a one-way hole.

Here is the rest of the story:
www.guerrillanews.com...

that is taking a way our freedom of Speach/press

The CIPB is simply not possible. It would require about 120% of currently utilized bandwidth to initiate, manage, and enforce. Considering that the capacity of U.S. bound e-mail (alone, much less web traffic) is about 3x that of offline mail, the task is laughable.

The sad thing is that idiot bureaucrats will spend tax dollars trying to find a way to do the impossible... um... well... no change there I suppose.


Don't worry, this won't/can't happen.

liken this to the missile defense plan, lol.

There maybe a conspiracy theory here though - given the resources it will take, namely bandwidth, it will bail out all the failing telecom companies that over-predicted bandwidth needs.





[Edited on 10-1-2003 by Bob88]

Remember that we keep griping about the "dumbing down of America"?

Legislators with wild plans like that are solid proof. Sheesh. Shades of Oregon and the GPS nonsense!

We in telco land did not over predict bandwidth we have intentionally not rolled out more dsl and fiber service because the FCC forces us to sell access to these services to our competition at below our cost. WHY would anyone spend captial to provision facitlities if you are forced to then hand over those facilities to your competiter and not be able to get a return on your investment??? Our stock has recently climbed back up after the FCC announced it was most likely going to suspend the rules in reguards to unbundled services being sold to ICOs. So seems Wall street has no problem with a large stable phone company!!! As opposed to a phone company in name only!

so you're a RBOC that wants to have it's cake (long distance) and eat it also (snuffing out CLECs)? lol
why don't the CLECs in my area and others offer DSL yet? anyway - those that over predicted bandwidth aren't the ones that provided bandwidth via dsl. I am talking about Wcom, Global Crossing, Sprint, etc. Their billing system, methods of billing are terrible and their business practices aren't moral - (buy X from ME and in turn I will buy X amount from you and it will look good on paper).

I am just bitter because our ISP cut our bandwidth off recently because a billing error - on their end - without any warning.

Yes I do work for that particular RBOC and yes we do want LD and no CLECs you cant imagine the extream headache dealing with the "little guys". In Florida Supra telco owes Bell $20 Mill US and files bankruptcy. Yet in Georgia the PSC allows Supra access to Bells network and we must allow them to amass debt while they are in bankruptcy??? go figure!!!

I wouldn't blame you. I have Ameritech/SBC. When the CLECS (in my case 'Corecom') entered the market I switched to them, they were cheaper. But, service sucked and I couldn't get DSL through them and if I wanted DSL I had to get it through Ameritech AND use Ameritech for my local phone service, thereby dumping Corecom. Frankly, I dumped Corecom like a bad habit for DSL/local phone service with Ameritech. They even gave me all sorts of rebates, specials, to come back. They didn't have to as I would have given them my left nut for DSL. However, SBC doesn't seem to have the problems that they had when I used to be with them (when they weren�t exclusive) - they are no longer the slow moving bureaucracy they were.

Originally posted by William
The CIPB is simply not possible.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!


Now who are we to trust??

Unky bush

www.whitehouse.gov...

or

eager crowd of sceptics and sciolists, who, having never seen anything, claim, therefore, the right of denying everything?

Hmmmmmmm.

Whatever do you mean papa?