congress wants to hand over part of the net to
corporations....bl8ant posted this....

http://www.civic.moveon.org/airwaves/?id=10433-6177502-mAoJvl&t=3

Oh swell!

OH BOY!!!!

they are working on a bill to tax emails...
think about that for a minute..

From where I am standing, I can see why they would want to do that. Look
at all the potential revenue stream TAX< TAX< TAX! Some would say
"great! Tax business more" as business suts back and raises their prices
to compensate, Brilliant idea While everyone is dancing
because business is being hammered once more, they don't realize that
congress is slipping in another tax on the middle class- their largest
cash cow. I'm so glad the Democrats are in charge, aren't you?

Yet *another* case where established companies fight the natural
progress of technology, because it undermines their business model,
which was rooted in previous technology.

As wireless tech continues to advance, we come closer to the day where
all private computer owners in a particular urban center could form
their own mesh network, and completely skip the service providers.

I think both liberal and conservative people can agree its a bad idea to
let established companies hold us back, just to protect their cash cows.

you nailed it zap. any time business is attacked for more revenue they
simply pass that on to the consumer, which is in effect a tax hike for
the american people, by some bi-partisan chicken shlts.

I see it as a line drawn between "We The People" and Congress. Since
Congress is siding with Big Business where do "We The People" come into
play with regards to percieved rights? Is this a fallout from
Reaganomics? Is this the utopian state of Capital Enterprise? Is greed
more important than freedom?

Big Business already owns the internet!!!
Where do you get your internet from? Out of the air, its not free and
its not owned by the Gov., some is but not the part the public uses.
Mine comes from AT&T, and I like it.
My bill has always been taxed so I dont understand that either.

I have broadband, telephone service (long distance and local), and
sattellite TV all in one bill for $99.00 a month flat charge, and for 6
dollars a month I get great internet security from the same place..

I thought Al Gore was a minority partner in the internet.

no, he just invented it


heres more on the tax.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/internet_tax_email_tax_is_coming.htm

>> Big Business already owns the internet!!!
Where do you get your internet from? Out of the air, its not free and
its not owned by the Gov., some is but not the part the public uses.
Mine comes from AT&T, and I like it.

Fanta,

The question of who is actually paying for the infrastructure of the
internet is a complicated one. Traffic flows over both privately and
publicly funded networks. You are right that big business is providing
your -access- to the network. I think we are in agreement about all
this, and the fact that since you currently need their service, you
should pay for it.

But what if you, and me, and 100,000 other people who have already
invested in wireless computers create our own network? What if we
devoted part of our harddrives, part of our processor cycles, and part
of our wireless bandwidth, to driving that network?

Then we should no longer need to pay for internet access, as we are
providing a good chunk of that network ourselves. This is the potential
of mesh networking in urban areas. Not yet, maybe, but look at what is
proposed in 802.11n.

I dont have wireless. It isnt real secure is it? I mean a signal with
your infornmation on it just floating through the air. From person to
person, just waiting for someone else to pluck it out!

Massage, I think you are missing the point. Wireless? Who owns the cell
towers? who owns the switching networks? Who owns the buried copper and
fiber optic? Businesses. Who would slam the gavel if the people tried
what you propose? The government. Congress loves big business? Hmmm. You
think your tax bill is high? Congress sees dollar signs. Big business
means tax, tax, tax. Like I said, do you for one second think that the
government cares about taxing business more? That's not their motive.
The middle class is going to carry the burden of internet taxation and
they know it but it would be stupid for them to say so. It would be
stupid for us to not admit that. Billions in tax revenue are waiting for
our Democratically controlled congress to scoop up. Rather than trimming
the budget, it is easier to raise taxes. Throw money at the problem is
the mantra of the Democrats. What happens when taxes are lowered? People
have more financial liquidity. They buy things. Those things need to be
replaced. Jobs are created to manufacture those things (in China mostly
it seems)ship them, stock them and resell them. How has raising taxes
EVER stimulated the economy? Raising taxes results in more government
programs. More wasteful spending. The government IS big business with an
open checkbook. Agencies spend money over budget whether it was needed
or not, so their next budget will require an increase. For what? I say
we hold the government liable for their wasteful spending! A dramatic
difference between Republican and Democratic ideals (GW excluded). I
wish, as a business owner, I could simply ask for more money for going
upside down due to waste and mismanagement. Yeah, right.

Fanta, You are right that physically its way easier to grab someone
elses wireless signal then their wired signal, in that way wireless is
'less secure', but it can be made secure through encryption. You can
have a secure wireless network, but even if you are using an entirely
'unsecure' wireless network - you can still easily create secure
connections on top of that with remote computers, such as with SSH. The
data is encrypted before it leaves your computer and decrypted on the
other end, regardless of how it travels in between.

Of course I'm all for companies providing a needed service and charging
for it! But when the natural progress of tech changes the rules on
them, and then they start paying politicians to make decisions just to
protect their revenue stream - then I see a 'problem.' Sadly, it seems
this is the 'normal' way to do things.

Zap, I believe we are discussing slightly different implications of the
same proposals. You say I am 'missing' the point, but I am making a
different point, neither for not against yours, which I think is very
important in this scenario. I have a suspicion that you may have
misunderstood me, by trying to force my words to fit into your previous
thought process.

Why do you even talk about cell towers? Cell towers have nothing to do
with home-grown wireless mesh networking.

"neither for not against" -> "neither for nor against"

Fanta, you can be hacked at any time. Non-encrypted wireless isn't
really wise as far as your wireless goes. I don't have wireless at
either of my office locations. They are hardwired T-3 and we run a
firewall. on our servers. More of that geeky stuff is somewhat foreign
to me. It's handy to have an IT guy who likes to get caught from time to
time playing on the internet while on the clock. lol

Oh, you are talking about cell towers to simply express your agreement
with one of my points - established businesses have a vested interest in
opposing the widespread use of mesh networks, if that use ever
threatened their revenue stream.

I am usin a cell network right now with my laptop via an air card.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I read that you feel business will benefit
from taxing internet sales. Business is the go-between. All we do is
collect the tax and pass it on directly to the state. Zero profit. Don't
shoot the messenger.