More To Consider...

[jrbick]

Obviously everyone's very focussed on recent legislation. For the most part we've made out "OK." So far. Who knows what else will happen in the next year.

However, something not necessarily "poker" related stands to threaten our ability to play in the future. Most of you are probably familiar with the intent of telecomunication companies to "regulate" the internet. It's a lot deeper than what I just said, but check out www.savetheinternet.com (http://www.savetheinternet.com) to read more.

Also, here's a link to a recent PBS program by Bill Moyers re: the issue. I haven't personally seen it since I only just heard about it in my American Gov. class which I'm sitting in right now on break, writing this post. You can actually watch the entire program at the link provided.

Bill Moyers PBS Program (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html)

Save The Internet DOT Com (http://www.savetheinternet.com)


Before you scoff at the issue and it's potential implications for internet poker, at least lend an ear to the PBS program.

[jrbick]

bump... lots of traffic in here.

[Wake up CALL]

Wouldn't this benefit online poker rather than cause harm?

[MiltonFriedman]

I cannot figure out how you say US poker players came out "OK" this year ? Are you insane ?

However, the ironic thing is that it was actually this Net Neutrality Act which Senator Stevens was addressing in the Daily Show clip on Internet Gaming.

Yes, the Net Neutrality Act is a serious issue. But to say poker players came out "okay" under UIGE is to argue we now should move on to this issue instead of looking after our own narrower interest. That is nuts.

[cheiro]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot figure out how you say US poker players came out "OK" this year ? Are you insane ?

[/ QUOTE ]

OP didn't say this.

[MiltonFriedman]

He said "Obviously everyone's very focussed on recent legislation. For the most part we've made out "OK." "

What else do you think it meant ?

[JSH06]

[ QUOTE ]
He said "Obviously everyone's very focussed on recent legislation. For the most part we've made out "OK." "

What else do you think it meant ?

[/ QUOTE ]

We did come out ok so far considering what could have been. Stars has stayed open after the bill was passed. What more could you ask for? It's obviously not gonna be like it was but it's good enough for now until the screw us even more.

[scottc25]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously everyone's very focussed on recent legislation. For the most part we've made out "OK." So far. Who knows what else will happen in the next year.

However, something not necessarily "poker" related stands to threaten our ability to play in the future. Most of you are probably familiar with the intent of telecomunication companies to "regulate" the internet. It's a lot deeper than what I just said, but check out www.savetheinternet.com (http://www.savetheinternet.com) to read more.

Also, here's a link to a recent PBS program by Bill Moyers re: the issue. I haven't personally seen it since I only just heard about it in my American Gov. class which I'm sitting in right now on break, writing this post. You can actually watch the entire program at the link provided.

Bill Moyers PBS Program (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html)

Save The Internet DOT Com (http://www.savetheinternet.com)


Before you scoff at the issue and it's potential implications for internet poker, at least lend an ear to the PBS program.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually watched this last night. It was a very interesting show and something everyone should learn more about.

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this benefit online poker rather than cause harm?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not.

1.) Who knows how much you'd have to pay for access to extra-software clients like the ones used by poker sites.

2.) Poker sites would have to pay the media corps. to be able to offer their services, so expect to pay more in rake.

3.) This assumes that media corps. will even allow anyone to view this type of material online. Given their bedfellowship (did I just make that up?) with Congress, I don't like the odds against being able to do so.


A question for you - did you even watch/read anything about what media corporations are trying to do here?

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot figure out how you say US poker players came out "OK" this year ? Are you insane ?

However, the ironic thing is that it was actually this Net Neutrality Act which Senator Stevens was addressing in the Daily Show clip on Internet Gaming.

Yes, the Net Neutrality Act is a serious issue. But to say poker players came out "okay" under UIGE is to argue we now should move on to this issue instead of looking after our own narrower interest. That is nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, most of what you said here is beside the point but I'll address it and let's just leave it at that, ok? Plenty of other threads to discuss that in.

I said

[ QUOTE ]
For the most part we've made out "OK." So far. Who knows what else will happen in the next year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Key clauses here are "for the most part," "OK," "So far."

I mean, I won't continue here. Hopefully you get the point. I make 100% of my living from playing online poker. I feed my wife and 3 month old son doing so. So, the fact that I'm still able to do that and a variety of sites is pretty "OK" by my standards.


Moving on.

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually watched this last night. It was a very interesting show and something everyone should learn more about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just finished watching it at the link I provided. This was an EXCELLENT news piece on the issue. I actually learned some things that I didn't know re: the issue before.

I don't see how anyone can watch this and not see that this is a gigantic problem that will affect all of us (poker community).

Beyond the poker-playing community, this issue has enormous implications.


If you want the internet to remain as is (unfettered access), you'd better get informed and get active.

If you want faster service via fiber-optic network, you'd better get informed and get active.

If you'd like to pay the same price or EVEN LESS for such a network, you'd better get informed and get active!



IF, ON THE OTHERHAND --


You'd like to pay ridonkulous prices for internet access and have limited access to the internet... carry on.

[jrbick]

Shameless bump... sorry probably should've used a more inflamatory title.

[jrbick]

I'll tell you why I'm adamently keeping this at the top. It scares me that we're all taking the same attitude towards this as we did towards UIGA. No one thinks it will ever pass and then.... "woops."

This isn't going down with out a fight, be assured of that. You already have congressmen interested in passing something in favor of the telecommunications companies. They've opened the door WIDE OPEN for something like this to pass. Lame Duck sessions tend to be dangerous with ratinoalism flying out the window. Even if we get through that, there's never going to be a reason to relax on the issue until legislation is passed in favor of keeping the internet neutral.


So, I'm starting the push at 2+2 now like we should've done with the UIGA.

GET ACTIVE AND MAKE SOME PHONE CALLS, SIGN SOME PETITIONS, ETC ETC. EDUCATE YOURSELVES BEFORE YOU TAKE A PASSIVE POSITION ON THIS!!

[Dan Burns]

[ QUOTE ]

GET ACTIVE AND MAKE SOME PHONE CALLS, SIGN SOME PETITIONS, ETC ETC. EDUCATE YOURSELVES BEFORE YOU TAKE A PASSIVE POSITION ON THIS!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen! This proposal is just as disturbing at the UIGA and I will be writing my senators about it. I hope it does some good this time.

[candyman718]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

GET ACTIVE AND MAKE SOME PHONE CALLS, SIGN SOME PETITIONS, ETC ETC. EDUCATE YOURSELVES BEFORE YOU TAKE A PASSIVE POSITION ON THIS!!

[/ QUOTE ]


Amen! This proposal is just as disturbing at the UIGA and I will be writing my senators about it. I hope it does some good this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Phone calls, emails, petitions. That works. It gets you back a letter like this:

Dear concerned citizen,

The internet is a series of tubes. We need to make sure the important stuff that gets dumped into the tubes can move freely. That is why I supported HR 666. If you have any other concerns don't hesitate to contact my office.

Yours Truly,
Congressman Douchebag

[Lottery Larry]

".) This assumes that media corps. will even allow anyone to view this type of material online."

Given enough money, you can get anything you want.

[malo]

Thanks to the OP for the heads up on this.

Hope he won't take this as a "shoot the messenger" rant, because it truly isn't. But man, I am getting so sick of this s&#t. First UIGEA, now this.......When, or where does it stop?

[spatne]

Agree 100%. I brought this up months ago and no one was interested. Thanks for revisiting the issue.

Forget poker for a second, the internet as we know it could be forever changed into something more like cable TV where your choices are limited by your provider. Your ISP will decide where you can and can't go on-line and how fast you get there. This would probably have a much greater impact on an explicitly legal US poker industry, but even in the current environment a non-neutral net would only hurt us.

Sen. Wyden (D-OR) put a hold on the Stevens bill, helping to save net neutrality for the time being. As far as I know, even Microsoft and Goolge are also pro-net neutrality. In fact, the only people who hate NN are the big TelCos and they aren't quitting. In PA I've been seeing anti NN ads left and right.

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

GET ACTIVE AND MAKE SOME PHONE CALLS, SIGN SOME PETITIONS, ETC ETC. EDUCATE YOURSELVES BEFORE YOU TAKE A PASSIVE POSITION ON THIS!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen! This proposal is just as disturbing at the UIGA and I will be writing my senators about it. I hope it does some good this time.

[/ QUOTE ]


This proposal is actually WAY more disturbing than the UIGA for obvious reasons.

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
".) This assumes that media corps. will even allow anyone to view this type of material online."

Given enough money, you can get anything you want.

[/ QUOTE ]


You say that but if this kind of legislation passes, only the telecom companies will have the final say in that.

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]


Forget poker for a second, the internet as we know it could be forever changed into something more like cable TV where your choices are limited by your provider.



[/ QUOTE ]


Cable TV and Radio are GREAT examples of what we're looking at if something like this passes in favor of telecom companies. Monopolized media. Monopolized internet would be an even bigger hit than what we saw w/ cable TV and radio.

Anyone here who runs a business via an internet web page should take great interest in this. You guys will be affected the most.

[malo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Forget poker for a second, the internet as we know it could be forever changed into something more like cable TV where your choices are limited by your provider.



[/ QUOTE ]


Cable TV and Radio are GREAT examples of what we're looking at if something like this passes in favor of telecom companies. Monopolized media. Monopolized internet would be an even bigger hit than what we saw w/ cable TV and radio.

Anyone here who runs a business via an internet web page should take great interest in this. You guys will be affected the most.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in the last thirty years, monopolies have been concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

When I worked in the media in the late 70's and early 80's (a small midwestern city), local media outlets were either locally owned, or a part of small regional groups. All are now owned by large corporate chains. Much of the decision making in our own market is made outside the market. And this scenario has been repeated over and over again throughout the country.

We used to have a decent local newpaper, and it was a nice sized paper for a city our size. Now it is a skinny Gannett rag filled with USA Today retreads, and not worth the fifty cents....or a wopping $1.75 on Sunday.

Net neutrality is huge--as some have posted, it's far bigger, and the loss of NN would be more devastating, than anything UIGEA can, or will, do.

[jrbick]

Malo,

Thanks for your input. I'm not old enough to not remember local radio (especially in the a.m., man do I miss those morning shows) and a much better newspaper, like you said. In Maine, where I live, I'm fortunate enough to have a living grass roots effort to maintain a sense of local community in media. Mostly with print media. Radio stations have basically sold out.

[Dan Burns]

[/ QUOTE ]


Yours Truly,
Congressman Douchebag

[/ QUOTE ]


I knew I shouldn't have voted for Congressman Douchebag

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]


Yours Truly,
Congressman Douchebag

[/ QUOTE ]


I knew I shouldn't have voted for Congressman Douchebag

[/ QUOTE ]


regardless of what kind of responses you receive, the more people that tell these guys the same things the more influence to be had on that particular congressman. That's what's important, not what they reply back to you with.

[spatne]

I understand the instinct to be cynical after the IG fiasco. However, this is a winnable fight for us and I'll tell you why:

1) NN may be a fresh topic here, but political 'net communities like have been on this since early in the year. Messing with the "tubes" hits internet activists where they live, and they have much larger and more active bases than 2+2. Say what you will about the efficacy of the netroots, they've been doing good work on this issue.

2) We have a bloc of senators solidly on our side. 29 Senators have stated in clear terms that they're on our side. 14 Senators have clearly come out against us. The rest are unknown or haven't taken a solid stance. 29 may not sound like much, but with the way the Senate works, those 29 can wield a lot of power. Especially if there's not a solid majority on the other side.

3) Ads! TelCos know that the politicians are listening on this issue! How do I know this? Because I see anti-NN ads on TV every day. These are not designed to reach my representatives. Verizon et. al. have lobbyists for that. These are designed to get me to call my reps. The TelCos know that a strong grassroots effort can swing this thing either way. Washington has open ears here. Write and call.


What else you can do.

1) Vote/volunteer in these Senate races if you can. If you live in Virginia, Montana, Nevada, Connecticut, or Washington there is a clear difference between the candidates on this issue:

CT - Ned Lamont is on our side. Joe Lieberman has
waffled. I do not know the stance of Alan
Schlessinger.

MT - Jon Tester is on our side. Conrad Burns is firmly
against us.

NV - Jack Carter is on our side. John Ensign is firmly
against us.

VA - Jim Webb is on our side. George Allen is firmly
against us.

WA - Maria Cantwell is on our side. I do not know the
stance of her challenger, but Cantwell is one of our
stronger allies.

In MT, NV, CT, and VA the challengers are the good guys. A win in any of these races would add a solid ally.

2) Not everyone gambles, but we all /images/graemlins/heart.gif the internet. Talk to people about the issue. Google "net neutrality" for more info. Get your friends to write and call their reps. This is a confusing issue for a lot of people. Like jrbick said, the cable TV comparison is the simplest, most effective way to explain the future of a Verizon-controlled internet.

3) If you live in Oregon, thank Senator Wyden for placing a hold on the Stevens bill. If you live in Maine, thank Olympia Snowe for being the only Republican to publicly support a neutral internet.

4) Unlike poker, this is an issue with partisan lines. Of the 29 Senators who openly support a neutral internet, 28 are Democrats. Of the 14 who openly oppose, all are Republicans. In addition, the Dem leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, supports NN. Nacny Pelosi, the Dem leader in the House, is a staunch NN supporter as well. Any telecom bill without strong NN provisions would face certain death in a Democrat controlled House and/or Senate. So, at the risk of sounding like a partisan hack, I'm telling you to Vote Democrat if this issue is important to you.

Whew.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
So, at the risk of sounding like a partisan hack , I'm telling you to Vote Democrat if this issue is important to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think paying $1000 per hour of internet access would be better on a cost benefit analysis compared to the higher taxes and opportunity costs I would incur with the Democrats in control of our country. I'll kindly pass on your generous offer Sir.

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Forget poker for a second, the internet as we know it could be forever changed into something more like cable TV where your choices are limited by your provider.



[/ QUOTE ]


Cable TV and Radio are GREAT examples of what we're looking at if something like this passes in favor of telecom companies. Monopolized media. Monopolized internet would be an even bigger hit than what we saw w/ cable TV and radio.

Anyone here who runs a business via an internet web page should take great interest in this. You guys will be affected the most.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good posting. I've been talking about this for years. I really don't think most people understand how this will effect their freedoms or the onslught of brain washing they will receive.

Control. Control.

[spatne]

Believe it or not, I'm not on this forum to turn people into Democrats or (*gasp*) liberals. I try to be transparent about my personal politics because I want people to trust what I write in my posts. I believe that in a forum full of diverse political souls, full disclosure makes life a whole lot easier.

I said to vote Democrat if you care about a neutral internet. To date, the facts support that statement, and I presented them honestly. As this was a post about net neutrality in a thread about net neutrality, your taxes were not a factor in my analysis. If you make 200K per year and keeping your taxes low is your first priority, then you probably don't want to vote Dem now or ever, internet be damned. Vote your interests.

[jrbick]

spat, WuC,

There's a politics forum for discussion like that. This thread is best served by staying on topic.


Just curious how many people went to view Bill Moyers program on this issue? Probably one of the simpler ways to educate yourself about the issue.

[Drac]

I watched the entire Moyers program and it really got me worked up about this issue. What a load of crap. I'm particularly peeved about the entire butt load of money that the telecoms received to upgrade to fiber optics that they stuck in their pockets. Corporations own our asses.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
spat, WuC,

There's a politics forum for discussion like that. This thread is best served by staying on topic.


Just curious how many people went to view Bill Moyers program on this issue? Probably one of the simpler ways to educate yourself about the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please point me to the pending legislation on this topic? What??? There isn't any???? GOOD GRIEF!!! I suppose this whole thread belongs in the politics forum then doesn't it?

Foolish people like yourself, I bet you also claim to be open-minded and impartial too don't you?