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."
Maybe on of the primary markets for PeekaBooty won't be China, but the U.S. Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire" because of a number of things. They stopped travellers and demanded to see ID/papers/etc. The U.S. is doing that now. They controlled information flow and communications. The U.S. is doing that now.
On a more positive note, I think I saw a recent article about Time Warner saying they would not be limiting or regulating use of RoadRunner. Let's hope.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
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.
The problem is that you cannot use anybody else.
most broadband providers have a govt sanctioned monopoly.
And after the recent declarations from the FCC the little competition that was coming from small dsl providers will soon evaporate.
how do you suppose that will happen?
thanks to the fcc the telcos can now exclude competitors from their hubs. The cable companies will never let a competitor on their cable. The cable networks were created with large government subsidies and such subsidies will not come for a duplicate cable network.
This government of ours has ensured that telcos and cable companies will have a monopoly on broadband for a loong time.
The ACLU did NOT state that "broadband access is a threat to internet freedom". This is a study on the problem of broadband monopolies being created in the cable market only, due to common carrier restrictions.
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
--
Seeing is believing; You wouldn't have seen it if you didn't believe it.
"What's left to legally justify broadband?"
What about Windows Update? What about the free Personal Learning Edition of Maya (an over 100 MB download), or Gmax (21.4 MB just for the installer, and 15.20 MB for the help files)?
Actually, courts have ruled the first amendment does apply to corporations. They are using this to overturn many of the FCC's regulations on ownership, including limits on the percent of the national market that cable companies can own and the TV/newspaper cross ownership ban.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire" because of a number of things. They stopped travellers and demanded to see ID/papers/etc. The U.S. is doing that now.
/. stretches of belief of all time. Honestly, the USA today and the Soviet Empire are similar? Are you getting moved to North Dakota because you hold a dissenting opinion? Are you getting a state-run occupation given to you? I THINK NOT.
This has to be one of the greatest
Does the current US gov't not let you go from state to state without papers? It is a little different, I would say. The only thing that you have to stop for in the US is if you are hauling cargo, and you have to make sure that you don't break bridges and roads with oversized roads.
They stopped travellers and demanded to see ID/papers/etc.
Well, do you know of a nation that DOES NOT DO THAT? I went to Cozumel, Mexico, a resort island with a planeload of yankees the other day. A man in green fatigues with a rifle was the first person I saw off the plane. IT IS A RESORT ISLAND FOR TOURISTS. Every nation does this. The USA for one had NO REASON TO STICK MILITARY AT THE AIRPORTS BEFORE SEPT. 11. They do now.
They controlled information flow and communications. The U.S. is doing that now.
I am a news photographer for FOX. My best friend at work went to Afghanistan. They could go wherever they pleased IN A WAR ZONE. I have no concept of what you are talking about nor any knowledge of what you claim, but I have videotape in my personal possesion to prove you're lying. If you are saying that the government and I are in bed together, and that I am doing everything in my power to control information to you, then you are a stone cold idiot. I work for an independent news organization.
I am not their "friend." Both sides understand the issues that we bring up.
DO YOU EVEN LIVE IN THE USA OR KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE USA ENOUGH TO MAKE THESE KINDS OF STATEMENTS? Apparently not. So take all of your crap karma and pointless, uninformed, anti-USA rhetoric and look up some information before you and your little revolutionista friends start spouting "facts."