This morning I look the time to email the Durham area senators and representatives about this bill. I will quote what I included in my email here:
I feel strongly that we should not restrict how towns and communities build their internet infrastructure.
I originally grew up in small town in Mississippi. We struggled to make ends meet. Realizing the future, my parents sacrificed so that I could have a computer and access to the primitive version of the internet. This access allowed me to accelerate my education and computer skills. I believe this early access to the internet was one of the key reasons for my future success.
The internet is the great equalizer. If a large company refuses to provide adequate internet to an area, these communities must have a way to provide internet to their population. Most people will not even live in an area without adequate internet access anymore.
Equally, TWC already greatly limits broadband access throughout our area. Just because we feel that we have adequate broadband internet access today, do we know that we will tomorrow? Do we know if we currently have enough roads and bridges to last us forever, for example? Restricting the methods that communities can compete and develop infrastructure hurts all of us.
Here you can see the list of representative who voted for and against this bill:
|Ayes:||Representative(s): Brisson; Carney; Crawford; Earle; Graham; Hamilton; Hill; Michaux; Moore, R.; Owens; Pierce; Spear; Wainwright; Warren, E.; Wray||Representative(s): Avila; Blackwell; Blust; Boles; Brawley; Brown, L.; Brown, R.; Brubaker; Burr; Cleveland; Collins; Cook; Current; Daughtry; Dixon; Dockham; Dollar; Faircloth; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Guice; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Holloway; Horn; Howard; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McComas; McCormick; McElraft; McGee; McGrady; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Murry; Pridgen; Randleman; Rhyne; Sager; Samuelson; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Stam; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Tillis (SPEAKER); Torbett; Warren, H.; West|
|Noes:||Representative(s): Adams; Alexander, K.; Alexander, M.; Bell; Bordsen; Brandon; Bryant; Cotham; Faison; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Floyd; Gill; Glazier; Goodman; Hackney; Haire; Hall; Harrison; Insko; Jackson; Jeffus; Keever; Lucas; Luebke; Martin; McGuirt; McLawhorn; Mobley; Parfitt; Parmon; Rapp; Ross; Tolson; Weiss; Wilkins; Womble||Representative(s): None|
To find out your representation, you may search by your county or zip code.
January 28th, 2011
On the evening of January 27, 2011, the government of Egypt stopped the majority of internet traffic going in or out of the country. Eighty million people were suddenly disconnected from the rest of the world. This was in an attempt to prevent the planned protests of the Egyptian people on January 28th to force a change in their government.
This is a visualization of the internet disruption:
Just two days prior to this event, it was reported that the US Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is attempting to pass a bill that would allow the US government to have similar powers to turn off internet access if needed. Essentially, this bill would allow the government to “turn off” the internet without judicial review. The events in Egypt should prevent this bill from passing.
First, the rulers of Egypt have proven that a government will abuse the “internet kill switch” for its own selfish causes. Likewise, arguments can now be made that the ability to stop internet communications is in conflict with the freedoms of speech and of the press as documented in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
More practically, however, just imagine what the financial devastation will be to companies that have all of their online presence located in Egypt. Who would ever place a web site or database on a server in Egypt now? Imagine how it would affect all the server farms and internet access providers if the US government had the ability to turn off the country’s internet access. Why would an international company risk placing servers in a country whose government could instantly disrupt internet access without limits?
The events in Egypt over the last 24 hours should show why a government’s power over an “internet kill switch” is such a horrible idea.
November 30th, 2007
I received this email today from the Chris Dodds for President campaign. I am not sure if it is an email goof or just a viral attempt at a spreading their message.
I am not sure I would want Sheryl Cohen as my campaign manager if she can’t figure out how not to email the world a private conversation.
However, all the fluffy “our supporters online are so terrific” propaganda really makes me wonder how private of an email this really is suppose to be…
Tim,I made a few small changes to your email draft — you’ll see them below.
Would have sent to the entire list myself, but I could only figure out how to send this test.
I know you’re concerned about sending another fundraising email, but we’re only $40,000 short of hitting our November goal, and that money will help keep us on the air and talking about ending the war in Iraq and the Constitution. And honestly, our supporters online are so terrific and have come through for us every time.
Plus, with votes on the war and retroactive immunity coming up, our leadership will help keep the pressure on other presidentials to keep their word.
Ask people to give at this link so we can track the goal publicly.
Campaign Manager, Chris Dodd for President
On Nov 30, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Tim Tagaris wrote…
Too bad that recalling a message does not really work on such a global scale.
September 8th, 2007
I purposefully avoid discussing politics here. As MightyQ tells me, politics discussion is usually futile.
Therefore, I will not comment on Iraq, Bush, or Iran. (Find me after a beer or two in the real world and that’s a different subject…) However, I do find it interesting that a part of al-Zarqawi’s plan was to get us into a war with Iran as well.
Here is a section translated from some of his documents over a year ago:
7. A war between the Americans and Iran. We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iran, who are (30 percent) of the population and under the Shi’a Rule.
2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.
3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.
4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.
5. Weakening the Shi’a supply line.
The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iran, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:
1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi’a Iranian side.
2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi’a Iranian side.
3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.
4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi’a fingerprints and evidence.
5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).
6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.