WHY IN THE SAM HILL CANI SUDDENLY NOT GET GMAIL WHEN I TYPE IN THE USER NAME AND PASSWORD I'VE BEEN USING FOR MONTHS? IS THIS SOME SORT OF A SHAM OR SCAM? THERE IS NOT EVEN A PLACE TO SPEAK TO HELP CENTER, NO PHONE NUMBER TO CALL, NOTHING. THIS IS NO WAY TO RUN A BUSINESS. IF THIS IS NOT RECTIFIED SOON, I SHALL BE FORCED TO CHANGE E-MAIL SERVERS. MARTHANN
Did you try Googling "gmail troubleshooting" or something similar? I found this much in two seconds, and it didn't involve posting my issue in a topic not even related to my issue. http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46346&cbid=m4c3m6t83kxo&src=cb&lev=index#NotWorking
Oh goody, ICANN for the FCC. I feel better already.
some people say your trying to help crush net neutrality i think there wrong right??? do no evil i believe in Google
This comment has been removed by the author.
This group's contribution will only be successful if it:1) first articulates the general purpose nature of the Internet, including how "net neutrality" stems from and is supported by that (i.e., through application independence and interoperability across autonomous routers); and2) then articulates how innovations like various notions for "Quality of Service" or types of network management will affect the general purpose character of the platformThis will keep clear what's at stake in the key respects, eliminate confusion, prevent misleading contention, and assure that tradeoffs are recognized rather than elided as various propositions are valorized on their own terms, rather than in relation to the essential characteristics the platform already provides to us.A constructive role you can play in relation to ISOC/IETF would be to recommend language to be published under a "General Purpose Platform Impact" header in their open protocols, similarly to the present "Security Considerations" header. You can also provide the public opportunity to comment on language you propose in this connection.Your framing of your mission should proceed from RFCs 4924, 4084, 1958, 2774, and 3724.See further comments along these lines here:Comments to FCCSame Comments on ScribdTwo names who should be invited to take part in this group: David Reed, John WaclawskiA helpful framing -- specifically attentive to the problem that the "net neutrality" issue elicits in relation to standards and the process of standardsmaking -- can be found in the legislative proposal by the Dynamic Platform Standards Project, available here .Cordially,Seth JohnsonCoordinator, Dynamic Platform Standards Project(posting in my individual capacity)
I am a big fan of Net Neutrality, With ISP's being owned by content producers or distributors there is far too much temptation for them to do a little "tweaking" to shape the data we receive into whatever they want it to be. ISP's should be big dumb pipes with minimal, protocol agnostic Quality of Service practices, anything else WILL be abused by the ISP's at some point to serve their own agendas. Oh and mandatory limits for data logging and retention would be good as well, some middle ground like say six months or so would provide greater privacy for the digital world where privacy has been so far, sadly lacking.
The comments on this blog belong only to the person who posted them. We do, however, reserve the right to remove off-topic or inappropriate comments.