First talked about Caschy that the blog has bremerhaven.de city- operates with a pronounced success (and not yet lifted with his personality, which is only mentioned in passing). Issue is this: In the telecom lame Youtube . That to me is also often been noticed, but I had thought that this would be somehow to me or my leadership. Finally, I have only DSL 3000 (paid for 6000 but we do thank you!). Following statements by the current Basic Thinking article there were at least a 3-digit number of affirmative comments. The issue is burning so.

Praiseworthy is already following times: The Telecom has responded quickly and a published opinion . In short: The Youtube consumption is huge. So vast that the networks can no longer afford this. Removing the need to Gedraht to make it to the user is comfortable again. The only catch here, you may think you have it: the cost. And indeed a lot. Now the telecom is not one of the lowest bidder, of course. But in the end run, the other providers that have cheaper fares on their networks. The need to pay anything for the network expansion. Now the telecom is not willing to bear the financial burden alone. The question now is who will pay?

Customers could pay. Yes they do now, but it could be something more. For example, a package for Youtube. Or generally for the use of video-sharing sites. But that would be an outcry, I guess. On the other hand, the mobile network, there are also charges for the use of Skype. Even if the meaning of the Skype package than the high volume of data, but rather is there to ignore the refinance of normal calls, so it's basically the same.

Another suggestion from my side: instead of the customers could be asked the other network providers to pay. How about the fact that any provider that has one customer accounted for more than 5%, using the telecom network, a percentage of the nets must spend?

Yet another proposal, this time at the expense of net neutrality (?): The Content Provider must resort to self-fund. What that means is that the big polluters to pay a traffic part of the conduits. Finally, they collect huge amounts of advertising money. The question here is, of course, where you draw the line. I personally think that only the major traffic edges should also be paid to the start-ups have a harder yet.

Of this time from: What do you think about the last idea? Is that unfair to the content industry? A goofy idea that's not the end. Trucks must indeed pay toll. So what was wrong with asking to Youtube to checkout? Finally, it will benefit the users of it (and of course the telecoms because they do not have to pay the network expansion alone). The net neutrality is not compromised in my opinion, because in the end is not so preferably a video service. At least I hope. You have to read just because the fine print in the contracts.

At the end of a small survey:

Loading ...

"Especially with AK-censorship, read internet censorship by the back door? ". Therefore take place behind closed doors, secret meetings in Seoul, where the enforcement of global Internet censorship is discussed. One contentious issue is compliance with copyrights on the Internet. That is hosting the "notice and takedown" procedure proposed, which provides, on suspicion the company website with copyright infringement on the grid immediately. In addition to Web 2.0 communities of users consider all submitted content before publishing. Furthermore, of course, from the 3-Strikes Law mentioned. Who does not know: The 3-Strikes Law encapsulates after 2 reminders to users on the Internet, downloading copyrighted material illegally.

I find this development very threatening! What we have not fought for it, that the internet locks are stopped. And then it? The fact that the locks are now conducted secretly behind closed doors there, but remember to already strong.

Need to comment ... for the Internet in the future can be identified accurately. This requires that the Chinese users (eg on a Newseite) is now entering its Personalausweißnummer, which is sometimes even as the author of the written comment, all other users publicly visible. What is one to say there's more than Goodbye to Privacy?

This makes the Chinese government always sent. Just give a peep from him and introduce the new measures absolutely silent. With this method you want to avoid riots, probably more than likely would have been if they had announced the new regulation size.

I find the whole censorship and imprisonment in the net quite arrogant and frightening. But the meaning behind it is probably quite simple: They want to make critical voices against the government identify and if possible lock behind bars. This keeps the power of well-preserved for a long time. I'm curious as to when we're ready. So far, our government hats "only" for the structure of a censor and a claim made for a new code of etiquette for the Internet.

[Via, Taz ]

I met the blow back until today so when I abklapperte my feeds. I was first of a H-news startled. Accordingly, the law to the censoring of websites containing child pornography a done deal. However, with a few changes.

Will continue to trade under the motto "instead of deleting locks" and the prosecution is not performed when one clicks to a stop sign and then lands. Well, if that is not?

But what is completely ignored, is arguably the petition by Franzi Heine. Nearly 130,000 Internet users have signed the petition so far, but which are apparently completely ignored. Can you believe it? Has China overtakes Germany in some respects ? Sorry, but I just lack the words. This law is sheer lunacy. There is a procedure in the constitution! And let millions of people liked the old bags! Something like this is not true!

I'm sorry, but I'm singing a round. Unity and justice and freedom ... NOT!

Somehow I feel just like a clairvoyant. So I blogged it a few weeks ago about why newspapers are becoming increasingly marginalized from the Web . And today I read in Golem that many gaming magazines report a loss of circulation. But that was really obvious, right?

Sun computer games has image the end of 2002 approximately 730,000 copies sold of the games magazine, but now only 284 076. These are only 38%! Unlike the competition, the magazine Gamestar is still relatively high. The latter is now selling an average of only 152 671 of expenditure and reported a decline of 18.5%. Bravo ScreenFun need to split out no longer, because the magazine with just under 12,000 copies will soon perish. Here, incidentally, are a decrease of 60%. more