Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy The Internet Your Rights Online Politics

Gubernatorial Candidate Speaks Out Against CAS 121

Posted by samzenpus
from the power-to-the-people dept.
New submitter C0R1D4N writes "Carl Bergmanson, a New Jersey gubernatorial democrat running in the 2013 primary, has recently spoken out against the new 'six strike policy' being put in place this week by major ISPs. He said: 'The internet has become an essential part of living in the 21st century, it uses public infrastructure and it is time we treat it as a public utility. The electric company has no say over what you power with their service, the ISPs have no right to decide what you can and can not download.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gubernatorial Candidate Speaks Out Against CAS

Comments Filter:
  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Monday February 25, 2013 @12:21PM (#43004615)

    Well, at least consumers now have an obscure gubernatorial candidate, who stands no chance of winning either the primary or election, on their side. Guess that beats *nothing*.

  • Common carrier (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25, 2013 @12:25PM (#43004667)

    ISPs look like common carriers and quack like common carriers. It's high time we started treating them as common carriers (i.e., imposing net neutrality on them).

  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Monday February 25, 2013 @12:29PM (#43004715)

    At least you could appeal to the FCC, if your ISP made a mistake.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25, 2013 @12:30PM (#43004725)

    I see they are going for a newspaper look,
    but the words

    are so spread out

    it makes my brain bleed

    to try and read it. and it looks like

    the articles are all smashed. together. and junk

  • Re:Poor analogy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25, 2013 @12:33PM (#43004781)

    Going along with your line of reasoning, the ISPs are distributors of child pornography and all of their executives should be jailed for life.

  • Re:Poor analogy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25, 2013 @12:33PM (#43004787)

    Just like the phone company absolutely has the right to refuse letting some calls pass through their switches if they want, right?

  • by Bob9113 (14996) on Monday February 25, 2013 @12:40PM (#43004895) Homepage

    "... the ISPs have no right to decide what you can and can not download."

    But the government does, right?

    No.

    "The internet has become an essential part of living in the 21st century, it uses public infrastructure and it is time we treat it as a public utility."

    Isn't it convenient how politicians use this situation to exert more control over the Internet? (And now watch as thousands of geeks who have otherwise been staunchly against the government regulating the Internet line up behind this guy.)

    He is not implying regulation of the Internet. He is implying regulation of the Internet service providers (to prohibit them from regulating the Internet).

    The Internet is not their hardware, it is our network that we pay them to provision.

  • by runeghost (2509522) on Monday February 25, 2013 @12:57PM (#43005089)

    You're conflating two different things and confusing the issue. Bergmanson is speaking of using government power to *prevent* corporations from engaging in censorship. You are implying that any government attempt to exercise the power to stop corporate censorship will itself be creating a situation where the government can and will censor the internet itself - something that is not exactly accurate.

    I find it disheartening how, whenever there is a semi-serious discussion of using government power to stop flagrant corporate abuse, someone inevitably hauls out the "OMG! We can't allow the government to have that much power! They'll abuse it and our freedom will suffer!" While I certainly am concerned about government tyranny and over-reach, I fail to understand why we settling for corporate tyranny and abuse instead is the only possible alternative. American history would seem to demonstrate that it is possible to have a government that keeps corporations in check without becoming some sort of nightmare police-state.

  • by paiute (550198) on Monday February 25, 2013 @01:15PM (#43005355)

    Well, at least consumers now have an obscure gubernatorial candidate, who stands no chance of winning either the primary or election, on their side. Guess that beats *nothing*.

    You can make this guy into a major candidate by writing him a check. As a matter of fact, if he doesn't get a couple of hundred thousand checks from the Slashdot community pretty damn quick then you all might be the whining do-nothing slackers the more cynical among you have always claimed.

The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay

Working...