Web superhighway likely to be toll road

Charles Mandel, For CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, January 30, 2006
The free ride may be over for consumers who download movies and music files and play video games, as Internet service providers consider a move toward a "two-tier Internet."

Companies that carry the data are talking about charging Canadians extra for everything from streaming audio and video to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone calls and online gaming. Anything that uses bandwidth is under examination.

"This is all about finding new ways to charge the consumer," says Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa.

"Ultimately, they're going to receive less service and have to pay more for it, and the response that they will receive is if you want some of these additional services, you're going to have to pay."

The added charges being discussed are the result of too much traffic riding on the networks for free, says Lawrence Surtees, director of Canadian telecom and Internet research with Toronto-based technology analysis company, IDC Canada.

"If it's just a blip, they don't care. But if it's big, then all of a sudden I'm an ISP with infrastructure. I'm on the hook for carrying that stuff and equipping the network to handle it and I'm not getting paid for it."

Tom Copeland knows first-hand about the additional costs. Copeland is the chairman of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, and owns Eagle.ca, an ISP in Cobourg, Ont. Copeland purchases his high-speed services from a third party that charges him a per-customer rate as well as a per-gigabyte rate for what his customers download. Copeland says he has one customer who uses $250 of bandwidth monthly.

The problem isn't that Copeland has to deal with that one customer, it's that he has to maintain the bandwidth to deal with that high volume -- regardless of whether it's being used.

"Certainly the bandwidth costs do have an impact on our bottom line," he says.

The same issues impact carriers large and small. Telus spokesman Shawn Hall says three factors come into play: the size of the Internet pipe and access speed, amount of data being downloaded in a month and priority access during high-demand periods.

"The industry has to move toward different charges for Internet customers with diverse needs," he says.

Currently, ISPs and telcos are creating a new network, says Hall. Telus is laying down new fibre at a cost of several million dollars in an attempt to smooth out the transmission of applications such as VoIP and video streaming.

Hall says the Internet was originally created for low-bandwidth applications such as e-mail and web surfing. Today's more bandwidth-intensive

applications don't tolerate delays in data transmission or dropped data packets that result in choppy streaming or poor voice quality.

Building the new network isn't cheap, says Hall, and those who use it most should bear some of the costs.

"It's simply not fair to charge someone who's using the Internet for a simple e-mail the same as someone who's streaming their TV or phone calls."

Telus is considering adding a quality-of-service charge or tiers of service tailored to different customer needs, Hall says. The company is also thinking about charging large firms such as Google or EBay for access to its network, something that Bell South and AT&T are also proposing in the United States.

But Geist says such a model is unhealthy and would stifle innovation.

"It clearly favours the established players who have the deep pockets and are in a position to pay or who control the pipe and are in a position to favour themselves. I think that does great harm to some of the innovative benefits the Internet brings."

Geist is equally concerned over traffic shaping, a technology companies use for the allocation of bandwidth that speeds priority bits and bytes to their destinations while choking other data packets.

Rogers Communications chief strategy officer Michael Lee says the company does traffic-shape, but that it speeds up the connection -- although he doesn't say for whom. Online

forums are filled with bitter cable customers complaining about slow or non-existent speeds for file-sharing services such as BitTorrent and podcast downloads.

Lee says Rogers has also talked about employing "tuned-up" versions of popular games that would give Rogers customers better network performance than gamers using other providers.

"We never found an opportunity to act on it, but I can tell you there is a mutual interest in these kinds of concepts," Lee said.

© The Edmonton Journal 2006

"What a CRAPPY idea (...and thus, very likely to happen!)"

LOL! Mike, that's just about the case, too.
We can see it in the concept of DRM, rootkits, governmental intrusion, etc.; so your notion (unfortunately) has some basis in reality.


"[A two-tier internet] is all about finding new ways to charge the consumer . . ."

"Such a model is unhealthy and would stifle innovation."

My comment: As Shmoo has indicated, this is a bad idea.

End-to-end encryption would make this more difficult. But unless its widely used, the ISPs will simply throttle that too. No doubt the DHS would be pleased.

I pointed this out in the emule forums some time ago - that if emule continued to use bandwidth like it was, it would cause ISPs to react. I suggested a few minor measures that would at least buy time - mainly prioritising transfers to users in nearby subnets, and thus on the same ISP, saving the ISP the costs of backbone-connecting bandwidth. I dont know if this suggestion was implimented. The same needs to be done for Bittorrent. It should reduce the demands on the internet considerably.

"End-to-end encryption" and etc...

Folks, all that kinda paranoid-protection flies in the face (with a fist) of what the Internet is SUPPOSED to have been.

The Internet was SUPPOSED to have been ours (...as in: "We the People" --) finally getting to talk to one another without government and/or corporate censors/dictators getting in the way...

Well? (Ask yourself)

Did we "get there"?

Re: "government and/or corporate censors/dictators"

Our federal government can't stand people having so much freedom; it makes them cringe. They simply must find some way to intrude or control. It's the nature of the beast. Just as a boa constrictor can't help squeezing the breath out of a living being within its grasp, the fed simply has to propel us toward the dawning of the new world order.

If Big Brother can't arrange to get enough control any other way, it can be expected to gain draconian powers through events like 9/11.

Well, I wrote: "through events like 9/11". I DIDN'T say "by precipitating events like 9/11" or "by being complicit in events like 9/11."
(Certainly, not many would dare accuse our very government of being involved in such a murderous disaster to obtain more power and control!)

Hmm. Should I have written "in the aftermath of events like 9/11" (and, thus, in that manner, perhaps I would be leaving less room for doubt)?

Semantics.

Yes, you shoulda written AFTERMATH OF (by taking advantage of.)

...I don't think GW was "behind" 9-11

but I sure think his administration milked (and still milk) 9-11 in favor of thier flavor of facism.

(Republicans are not evil per se, but GW and Carl Rove/Chenny/Rummy etc. certainly ARE evil in MY book!)

...there, I said it.

Boys and Girls, feel FREE to bash me for what I just said (or anyone else here on their politics.)

We ALL get to have our say with our different political views. (At least I HOPE we still have that liberty.)

Yes - only a few very paranoid people thing the US government had any involvement in causing 911. But they made good use of it in political terms - Bush gained enough popularity to pass a second election with stories of shadowy terrorists massing to destroy americans that only he could provide protection from.

But talk about something enough and it almost becomes real. The threats were exagerated so much it became nessicary to do something about them.

(I won't hate you if you disagree with me. I will only "hate you" if you sit there and "go along" with whatever form of fascism comes your way and overlooks you because you "play along" in order to get by.)

"The threats [of shadowy terrorists amassing to destroy Americans] were exaggerated so much it became necessary to do something about them."

Yes. And I've noticed the administration has had no qualms in doing that "something". It could even be said that they have relished the opportunity.

Regarding what i wrote previously:
Personally, I don't discount possibilities until they can be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. (Logic rules.)
And THAT includes any entity such as greedy corporations or power-hungry governments.
AND that includes any EVENT (9/11/01 notwithstanding).

"notwithstanding" = not excepted

Well, I've come to think that someone other than Bin Laden was behind 9/11. Not saying ol' Dubya sat and planned it, but he had to have known the plan existed. I mean, what better way to get in the good graces of a people who felt he "stole" the 2000 election?

But anyhoo, a two tier Internet is a really bad idea. Not to say it isn't already being tried. Just look at satellite ISPs.

I had actually considered signing up for satellite internet back in the days before the ran a cable connection out to where I live. The price was a bit high, but I was getting extremely tired of dial-up and the constant fighting with the rest of the family over actually using the internet.

Then I got to looking at the terms of service for the only ISP in town (Direcway, a service of DirecTV). It basically said that if you used more than X megabytes of bandwidth in any given month, then your connection would be throttled to about 12 KB of data transfer until your usage dropped to their level. It was worded something like if you use your connection for anything other than what they considered the "intended purpose" then they would throttle you. They even said that if you downloaded computer updates, then this would not be the considered the "intended purpose" of the Internet and throttle you.

So it is being tried if not to charge anyone, but to force users into only surfing for text-only information (yes, downloading excessive amounts of pictures would get you throttled on this Direcway service).

Not sure how it got brought into this thread but on to the politics...

"Republicans are not evil per se, but GW and Carl Rove/Chenny/Rummy etc. certainly ARE evil in MY book!"

Evil? Really? What have they done that is "evil"? You may disagree with their politics but how do you think they are evil. (Playing devils advocate) They freed Afghanistan from a brutal dictatorial regime run by religious extremists. They gave 25+ million people the freedom to vote in Iraq and freed them from a maniacal madman (and his sons.) Unemployment is at it's lowest point in decades. The stock market is on an incredible climb. Are you listening to too much Al Franken?

"Bush gained enough popularity to pass a second election with stories of shadowy terrorists massing to destroy americans that only he could provide protection from."

That only he OFFERED protection from. Kerry was more like, "uh, it's not that big of a deal, let's just talk to them. I'm sure they'll listen."

"But talk about something enough and it almost becomes real. The threats were exagerated so much it became nessicary to do something about them."

Wow, the threats aren't real? Can I go visit the twin towers then? They should still be standing right? Given that the threats aren't/weren't real. I guess we should do nothing to stop Islamic extremists because they don't really want to destroy America or see you dead.

"Well, I've come to think that someone other than Bin Laden was behind 9/11. Not saying ol' Dubya sat and planned it, but he had to have known the plan existed. I mean, what better way to get in the good graces of a people who felt he "stole" the 2000 election?"

WOW! So now Dubya LET it happen??? Just to win an election?!? You think he cares about the presidency more than thousands of innocent lives and the destruction of one of the most recognizable landmarks on the planet?!


Sheesh people, get a grip.
Fact: Muslim extremists want you dead...period.
Fact: They have a history going back a thousand+ years of trying to make you dead.
Fight back or die.

"Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
Qur'an, Sura 9:5

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/default.htm#attacks
Check out the chart at the bottom and then tell me if their threats are to be ignored. They may represent a very small percentage of the Muslim population across the world but they ARE very determined to see you and your internet and your CD's and your movies and your way of life GONE.

this is so incredibly stupid...i cant read the whole article...this is sounds like something the RIAA would try to pull...but man...why is every company striving to earn more profit by stiffing the consumer?...answer: the crappy economical situation created by the bush presidency

Hey, ninjamurf:

Lots of points to respond to, but so little time at the moment.

"What have the Republicans done that is evil?"
(Whew! Let's save that one for another occasion.)

"Fight back or die?"
It may be more like, fight back and die anyway.
Do you really believe anti-terrorist laws/strategies will prevent another major disaster stateside?
To completely count on that would smack of naivety. But if you are just wanting to have the risk reduced, fine, that's a prudent endeavor worthy of significant effort.
(There's no argument about how it would be unwise to not acknowledge that radical Muslims wish us dead, but it would be just as unrealistic to expect that we can prevent all acts of terrorism.)

An issue that cannot be proven or disproven is whether the administration knew in advance that 9/11 was coming.
By way of speaking about the extent of the doubt, a recent random poll taken in New York indicated that about half thought they did. That's pretty strong stuff.
Just goes to show that any person is welcome to their opinion, just as is the case with whether only Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for JFK's assassination.
(Investigations typically leave questions unanswered, it seems.)

The effects of 9/11 could be serving the interests of those who wish to see a powerful global government implemented for the planet.
In fact, New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici stated just that on Larry King Weekend Live on October 14, 2001.
Additionally:
"The threat of unprecedented crises will be the international disaster keys which will unlock the New World Order." — Former Soviet President and ex-KGB official, Mikhail Gorbachev, current director of the Gorbachev Institute (a think-tank organization in California that's been devising and promoting plans for globalism)
This is the same gentleman whom Reuters News Service had reported on previously, quoting these words from Mr. Gorbachev in October 2001:
“The victims of the 9/11 attacks in the United States will not have died in vain if world leaders use the crisis to help create a new world order. . .”

This is just a sample of what could be presented. (Oops, the timing buzzer just went off!)

So, anyway, as we were talking the article and all... Some broadband rates are \already setup to charge you more based on how much speed you want. The lowest available speed might be 128k, just for the sake of argument, while the fastest might be 512k, or any other number you could think of. You pay more for the faster speed, and that part of it makes sense - you're getting a better service.

I think this article was more focused on bandwidth. I'd be willing to pay for my bandwidth, as long as I get a good discount when my bandwidth usage is low, and not extreme when it's high. It seems fair though.

(Republicans are not evil per se, but GW and Carl Rove/Chenny/Rummy etc. certainly ARE evil in MY book!)

Oh really?

MMMM....Judging from their antics during the Alito mess....I'm incline to think that Teddy K, Biden, Byrd, and Schumer are saints?

ARE evil!
9-11?
London attack?
Slaughter in Madrid?
USS Cole attack?
Tanzania\Kenya embassy bombings?

So what part does Osama bin Laden play in all this? A person who has declared open war against America, it's allies, and the JOOOOOOOS! You remember us right?? 6 million? Killed by another murderer chanting the same filth 60 years ago?

What about Ayman al-Zawahiri? A doctor who sworn to serve mankind snuffing out 3,000 people in one single day.

mmm what about Mohammed Atef? a policeman who's job was to protect...who's murderous campaigns were stopped by the brave souls in our armed forces...

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed maybe?? who planned the 9-11 attacks? You haven't forgotten those have you? attacks on persons who's only crime was going to work that morning.

Don't fool us! We seen the results of evil that fateful day....And we for as long as we live should never forget.

Of course the face of true evil above all others can be found here!

http://virtual.park.uga.edu/~malbino/webwrite/teddy.jpg

Hitler of course making a close second.

I’ll be waiting for Code’s website to be updated with TeddyAsHitler graphics any day now!

Don’t take my word for it though.....after all “we like our music and our politics Independent”

mmmm well the music anyway!

"Wow, the threats aren't real?"

Oh there very real ninjamurf. But for those who are stupid enough not to think so can read for themselves the very declaration of war, Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri declared on the United States.

"World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders"

The following statement from Usama bin Laden and his associates purports to be a religious ruling (fatwa) requiring the killing of Americans, both civilian and military.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

"The victims of the 9/11 attacks in the United States will not have died in vain if world leaders use the crisis to help create a new world order. . .”

I’m incline to think that corporations are the people we should be looking to take advantage of the 9-11 attacks..... After all we have Starbucks on record charging for water for people who managed to get out of the towers that day...They are the ones buying off the government with their filthy money from lawsuits. People have it wrong here, it’s the other way around...It’s corporations that are leading the government by the tail....Which in the end begs the question....Are they both one and the same? That’s better left for another thread.

Oh since I'm on a roll, I should comment on the article. Long story short, corporations are working day and night to think up ways to squeeze money from the Internet...so them charging for bandwidth shouldn't be a surprise....Only thing now is to get it by the government, which gets back to my question asked above.

Watch out people....The creeping media is vying for more control! It’s time for the rest of us to let them know....“The battle is joined”

“Many years from now dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!”

I’ll let you all play Jeopardy with that little tidbit.

Gad: We need more citizens like Patrick Henry was.

(In case someone might not recall, Patrick Henry was the one who declared in 1775, "Give me liberty, or give me death!")

We most certainly do Codger.

ninjamurf

"They freed Afghanistan from a brutal dictatorial regime run by religious extremists."
Yes they did. But when Afghanistan fought The Soviet Union our goverment put this dictatorial regime of religious extremists into power.

"They gave 25+ million people the freedom to vote in Iraq and freed them from a maniacal madman (and his sons.) "
True, but our goverment lied about the WMDs and Saddam Hussein involvement with Osama bin Laden.

"Unemployment is at it's lowest point in decades. The stock market is on an incredible climb. Are you listening to too much Al Franken?"
Unemployment it all depends on how you count unemployment. Do you only count people on unemployment? Or do you count all the people unemployed? The stock market can fall just as fast as it climbed, like in the stock market crash of 1929.

"Wow, the threats aren't real? Can I go visit the twin towers then? They should still be standing right? Given that the threats aren't/weren't real. I guess we should do nothing to stop Islamic extremists because they don't really want to destroy America or see you dead."
The threats are real and the world trade center is gone. First off, you have to follow the MONEY to understand what is happening. News Flash, Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, troops sent into Afghanistan to capture al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Instead of doing this we diverted troops into Iraq to go after WMDs. What WMDs none. Did The Caryle Group have anything to do with this? I know if I were President, I would have sent the troops that were in Iraq into Afghanistan first and on all the borders. So al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden would not leave that country at all.

"Well, I've come to think that someone other than Bin Laden was behind 9/11. Not saying ol' Dubya sat and planned it, but he had to have known the plan existed. I mean, what better way to get in the good graces of a people who felt he "stole" the 2000 election?"
"WOW! So now Dubya LET it happen??? Just to win an election?!? You think he cares about the presidency more than thousands of innocent lives and the destruction of one of the most recognizable landmarks on the planet?!"

The goverment knew that something was going to happen to the WTC. In 1993 al qaeda bombed it. As for Dubya knowing about what would happen on 9-11.Most likely not besides he was at his ranch most of the time anyway. But the goverment agencies knew something was in the works. Whether they shared the info or not we the people will never know.

"Check out the chart at the bottom and then tell me if their threats are to be ignored. They may represent a very small percentage of the Muslim population across the world but they ARE very determined to see you and your internet and your CD's and your movies and your way of life GONE."

My way of life was taken away from me not by al-Qaeda, but by The Dubya with the Patorit Act. Why should the freedoms
that we died and fought for. Be taken away from us? You can not take away a person freedom to insure freedom. It never would work that way. It would only enslaved the people slowly like it was intended to do. Little by little our rights in the name of freedom and security of this nation is being taken away from us. Why? Terrorism? I say follow the money. To who wants to control what we do. As for the Patorit Act if it was only for one to three years then dissolved, then it would have been fine with me.

"My way of life was taken away from me not by al-Qaeda, but by The Dubya with the Patorit Act. Why should the freedoms
that we died and fought for. Be taken away from us?"

Jesus! When did Michael Moore sign up for membership....!

Keep in mind that there hasn't been an attack here since 9-11...Since hindsight is blahh blaah blaah.

Bet money though that once Bin Laden "does" get one by the goal post...People like this hawk7771 will be the first screaming

"Why Wasn't Anything Done?"

Those who wish to actually want to "read" the Patriot Act can find it here...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:

First bombing wtc 1993 (Billy boy Clinton) was in office. As for Micky Moore he has his own agenda. As for Dubya, do you really think he runs the country? NOT ! Patriot Act is not going to stop al-Qaeda. If anyone from mexico on down can cross the border. Between Canada and Mexico there are 8,000 miles of international boundaries. al-Qaeda can get in anytime they want to. What are you going to do build a wall around the United States. Not! Dubya had him in Afghanistan what happen? I was on canal street when the wtc went down. Your so right that I would be the first if not the second one to scream. Lost some friends when it came down. But Don't Tread On Me. Lost of freedom is still lost of freedom. Anyway you put it. You go after the one who did it.And yes "Why Wasn't Anything Done?" In Afghanistan? Excecpt a token effort there. Not to take anything away from the men and women that served there. Oh and bye to bye I really do not care what party they are in when in office. If your an ass your an ass. A puppet is even worse. Freedom is hard won. But is harder to keep intact. GaldflyDisourse Just follow the yellow brick road, do what they say, believe what they say, Question nothing.

"What have the Republicans done that is evil?"
(Whew! Let's save that one for another occasion.)"

No, no, no...come on out with it. No fair to leave it hanging like it's "obvious". State your proof.

"Fight back or die?"
It may be more like, fight back and die anyway.
Do you really believe anti-terrorist laws/strategies will prevent another major disaster stateside?"

More so than not fighting at all. At least I'll die trying.

"a recent random poll taken in New York indicated that about half thought they did."

The same people that voted Hillary into office? Nuff said.

"Yes they did. But when Afghanistan fought The Soviet Union our goverment put this dictatorial regime of religious extremists into power."

What's your point? This whole "we put them into power" argument is useless. Of course we helped them, they were fighting Russia at the time. So after they defeat Russia and turn their designs on the US what should happen? If they start terrorizing their own population we should just let it happen "because we helped them fight Russia"?

" True, but our goverment lied about the WMDs and Saddam Hussein involvement with Osama bin Laden."

Nobody lied you moron. You "may" have an argument that they made decisions based on bad information but NO ONE said "heh, I KNOW they don't have WMD's, but I'm going to war anyway." The fact is he had them, he used them, and now it is believed (according to one of his former General's) that he shipped them off to Syria disguised as an aid package. Finding them was inconsequential. The problem was Hussein. Hussein never denied he had them. He never opened up his factories in a timely manner to UN inspectors. He basically said F-you I don't have to let you in and I don't have to tell you what I did with them. Well, WRONG! You see he LOST that first little excursion we made into Iraq and the terms of the deal were that he WOULD tell us and he WOULD let the UN in. So, when he didn't talk, and he locked the gates for extended periods of time...he got exactly what he was asking for. And now the world is a better place for it. And to believe that Saddam didn't have ties to organized terrorism and Bin Laden is the ultimate in naivete.

"The goverment knew that something was going to happen to the WTC. In 1993 al qaeda bombed it."

Really? What did they know? Just because they hit it before they were going to hit it again? That's like saying that because they hijacked a plane they're going to hijack one again. Sure, they probably will but neither you, nor I, nor anyone else for that matter has any intimate knowledge of when or where this is going to happen!

"My way of life was taken away from me not by al-Qaeda, but by The Dubya with the Patorit Act."

Please, tell me what you CAN'T do now that you COULD do before 9/11?? Tell me what liberties YOU have lost personally?

"Nobody lied you moron. You "may" have an argument that they made decisions based on bad information but NO ONE said "heh, I KNOW they don't have WMD's, but I'm going to war anyway." "

Downing Street Memos....They made it up to sell the war to the people, AKA lied.

I am not usualy prone to political debates here (wrong forum), but am firmly opposed to using fear as justification for oppression. If another attack comes, I will not be screaming for the government to come and protect me....But I also do not want the government to monitor my every movement, so I get what I ask for should I be a victim. This is the fundamental price paid for liberty. You want to be protected and have someone hold your hand and tell you it will be all better? There are many third world countries that are more than able to accomodate. Just don't ask me to accept this form of existence with you.

Makes me wonder how different things would be if a Democrat were in office....I'm sure the excuses would be flying left and right....

Say what you want.....Not (1) attack since 9-11....Now boys and girls how many years has that been?? Do the fuzzy math.

But of course the freaks will say Al Qaedia works by their clock not ours...Only here will you find some that will defend our enemies right to kill us.

"Downing Street Memos....They made it up to sell the war to the people, AKA lied."

So what? Saddam was a bad man and everybody knew it....He gassed his own people....Pictures I've displayed in the past on this very website....

As for Clinton, What was that whole Kosovo mess for anyway? And by the way, Saddam (did) have WMD's because...well us and the Russians gave them to him...Democrats should not be screaming....there were no WMD's...But where the heck are the ones we knew he had?

Please, tell me what you CAN'T do now that you COULD do before 9/11?? Tell me what liberties YOU have lost personally?
To renew a drivers License. I now have to show a birth certificate. Instead of my old license. I can not carry large sums of money with me on an airplane. You almost get strip search boarding a plane. Which is all just a pain in the neck but it should not be happening. Police can search my house without a warrent.Pull me over and search my car. Surveilance cams. criminals will simply just find ways around the surveilance cameras, and criminals are still criminals, but honest citizens no longer have any privacy.
"According to CDT, the Act
· Allows government agents to collect undefined new information about Web browsing and e-mail without meaningful judicial review;

· Allows Internet Service Providers, universities, network administrators to authorize surveillance of "computer trespassers" without a judicial order;

· Overrides existing state and federal privacy laws, allowing FBI to compel disclosure of any kind of records, including sensitive medical, educational and library borrowing records, upon the mere claim that they are connected with an intelligence investigation;

· Allows law enforcement agencies to search homes and offices without notifying the owner for days or weeks after, not only in terrorism cases, but in all cases - the so-called "sneak and peek" authority;

· Allows FBI to share with the CIA information collected in the name of a grand jury, thereby giving the CIA the domestic subpoena powers it was never supposed to have;

· Allows FBI to conduct wiretaps and secret searches in criminal cases using the lower standards previously used only for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence
"YOU have lost personally? " It's not just me in everyday life because you go to work,home, play. Most people do these things on a daily basis. Your life will not change untill it is to late. Look at your history 1930's germany.

Really? What did they know? Just because they hit it before they were going to hit it again? That's like saying that because they hijacked a plane they're going to hijack one again. Sure, they probably will but neither you, nor I, nor anyone else for that matter has any intimate knowledge of when or where this is going to happen!

They did it before and they did do it again so whats your point. They knew it could happen and they knew they were in the country whether it was 9-11 or 9-12 whatever, they knew they were in country.Yet they did nothing at all. I'm not saying they could have stop it all. But they could have done something.
WMDs were not there. he said they were not there.
"He basically said F-you I don't have to let you in and I don't have to tell you what I did with them."
If the U.N came into the U.S. and we want to check for WMDs what would they find?
Would we let them or just use veto power.
Saddam yes he should be hanged and rightly so. But get al-Qaeda first.

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Benjamin Franklin"

Jesus! You just knew that the famous quotes were going to be dragged out...

hawk7771, just because you use the words of dead priesidents doesn’t automatically make them your own...nor anymore intelligent.

Hey what do you know! The Patorit Act was extended....You should be safe for now hawk7771 to know that the governemnt won’t be dragging you from your computer terminal or record you coming out of a “gay” bar.

It’s safe to say that youself and Anthony_Romero can still ascend the highest “peaks” of Brokeback Mountain.

For Now!

Who said benny boy was dead, he was copyrighted. When did Old Ben become President. He was always flying that darn kite with that silly key. Who was it that said I was wise and inteligent. Just let me find Him. From whom am I safe from, now that it was extended?
Your right we were both born in The Bronx. As for Brokeback Mountain you can go to corner of Bleeker and thomson. But I prefer The Bitter End - 147 Bleeker Street. That in NYC.

Well hawk you got me there...I was thinking when you stole all that from FDR

What was I thinking? Oh yeah..my "own" thoughts!

Hey, ninjamurf -

Time and time again since President Bush initially declared "victory" on May 1, 2003 on the deck of that aircraft carrier, it has been noted that most of the claims of the President have been dispelled. Within the past year alone, even the President's own arms inspector admitted that Iraq never did have any Weapons of Mass Destruction and stated that anyone who still believed this was "delusional".
So, I guess you can join the ranks of the delusional, if you want to (it's still a free country for choice of ideas)!

And while many Bush followers insist upon being "delusional", the President's critics are growing by leaps and bounds (and not just Pat Buchanan, who recently made a scathing criticism of the current administration).

Well, there are always those of the diehard delusional crowd that seem inclined to practice the supposedly ostrich routine of burying their heads in the sand.
But that's okay. We need all kinds of people to make life interesting, don't we.