Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Study Wary of Broadband Providers
An anonymous reader says "The ACLU recently had a study done that suggests that broadband access is a threat to internet freedom. Their study focuses on the control available to broadband providers who don't have to deal with the same level of competition or regulation as ISP providers. The result is the ability to radically control internet access combined with the omnipresent corporate incentive for profit, whatever the cost to free speech."
There are loads of ISP's offering broadband (ADSL) here in the UK some of which explicitly say you can serve anything legel and have as many pc's as you want hanging off you connection and tell you how to setup nats etc...
The UK regulater makes a hell of a lot of noise, the UK had a public monopoly upuntil a few years ago and the regulator keeps trying to force down prices offered to ISP's for dialup and ADSL access.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
It is the grand flaw of capitalism. When a company reaches the point where it no longer has to care about how good the service it provides is, and merely tries to maximize it's profit without needing any concern for the trade-off, then it is wrong. Take Microsoft. It's not in there best interest to increase their profit by making a better product - it works better for them to screw their customers. That's what anti-trust laws are for, and that's why we try to keep any one company from having control of a product/service. The unscrupulous among us (and there are many) will stop caring about customers. That's not how it should work.
SIG: HUP
Sure. I have no problem not running servers on my residential connection. I agreed not to, and they have valid business reasons for asking us not to. They don't put technological means in place to prevent it -- such as NATting their entire RR customer base, which allows people to play games, etc.
And, Time Warner will let me run a server -- if I buy a "business class" connection. I will add that the business-class RR connection, which allows servers, is still a lot cheaper than other bandwidth alternatives.
They are actually very reasonable about it.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
What you describe is not a flaw of capitalism but rather a flaw in the current application of anti-trust laws in the U.S. Capitalism, unhindered by the sort of kowtowing to corporate interests we see in our Congress and governmental "leadership," provides (if not requires) the ultimate remedy to this problem: competition. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater; the bad guy here isn't capitalism, but rather the lack of.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Capitalism...provides (if not requires) the ultimate remedy to this problem: competition.
I have to say I don't agree. The structure of Capitalism allows the acquisition or destruction of the "competition."
Capitalism is warfare in the retail realm (though it's effects spill out into other areas of life;) it is a pseudo-feudal system, where warlords seek to conquer their oposition, and smash them into the ground.
Any divergence from this scenario requires legislation to protect citizens from the mighty power that capitalist organisations wield: namely, a truce (where everyone agrees to a price for goods that benefits all major competitors) or victory over all opposition (where more legislation is needed to prevent the monopoly.)
It is every corporate entity's wish to either have a balance of power (which means an abatement of competition) or to eliminate their opposition (which, also means an abatement of competition.)
Capitalism is warfare. The bigger and smarter and more powerful, the more likely they will win. The only thing that stops a state of hegemonic dominance by Corporate Capitalist entities, is the law.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
When a company reaches the point where it no longer has to care about how good the service it provides is, and merely tries to maximize it's profit without needing any concern for the trade-off, then it is wrong.
Sure it is...and there's one sure-fire solution. If enough people in the market are willing to get off their lazy asses and do something about it, they'll take their business elsewhere. A monopoly creates opportunities for abuse, but its the money that allows the abuse to continue. If consumers would rid themselves of their indifference, it seems like it could really turn things around.
I LIKE the fact that the Dow Jones is tanking. It's unfortunate that people are experiencing serious loss, but sometimes you've got to take a few steps back before moving forward. The message I see here on the part of investors is, "play by the rules, or don't play at all." Bush and his cronies would do well to climb out of their ivory towers and take note.
Part of this chaos is admittedly emotional, but the other part, I'm assuming, deals with the very real issue of investor confidence. There may well indeed be some good stock buys in the market right now, but without any reassurance that corporate fraud will be vigorously prosecuted, where's the sense in subjecting your money to any further risk that it will be stolen by corporate thieves?
To sum it up- if the practices of a given monopoly or corporate conglomerate are out of line, complain. If that doesn't work, LEAVE, and by all means, take your wallet with you.
I agree. This is the difference between capitalism and a free market. When there is a monopoly, there is no free market because the buyer can't choose different suppliers. Yet monopolies are often the result of a long term capitalist market.
Having a free market should be the goal--not a capitalistic one. Unfortunately, the government seems to be pushing for a capitalistic market that is tightly regulated (as in enforcing policies that define every way the company should act). This is much like communism--the only difference is that the government doesn't own the companies on paper. Maybe it is this way in some countries, but it is this way in my country (the US). They don't even seem to punish most real criminal behavior--just bring down everyone with absurd contradictory and restrictive standards.
It should be that the government maintains a free market by enforcing anti-trust laws (which they don't--just look at Microsoft) and punishing actual criminal behavior--such as fraud, theft, murder, etc.