Slashdot Mirror
Companies Join Together to Maintain Open Internet
idontneedanickname writes "SiliconValley.com is carrying an article from The Mercury News about the lobbying efforts of companies such as Amazon.com, Microsoft and Walt Disney (yes, you read that right) to stop the FCC from "fundamentally altering the Internet. If that happens, they say, the Internet could evolve into a cable-TV-like system, where providers of high-speed Internet access could steer subscribers toward affiliated Internet sites. The network owners could also limit the types of devices that could be connected to their network, potentially stifling innovation." Printer friendly version of the article is online as well."
This doesn't happen already? And Microsoft - shessh - Don't some of their applications "STEER" users to their services, taking over what was formerly there? =) jay
This has got to be an April Fool's joke, right?
Oh wait, I get it. It is only the companies that don't own large networks that will biatch about this.
I'm sorry, it's just too early for me to think.
Finally some big name companies on our side. Maybe now congress won't give free reign to the MPAA
that a big black monolith would land on their T1 lines and all there IMs would start spamming, "All these private subnets are yours except the Internet, attempt no meddling there."
The mentioned companies will acquire broadband infrastructure, and two years from now will be lobbying for the opposite goal.
Ever thought about how much happiness such a little insulated wire can bring into our lives?
BOO! TERRO
3 cheers for the companies! Go capatalism? Uh... wait, where am I? Corporate pig-dogs! Marxist ideals rule here at /.! Back to your decadent western towers, and your filthy alluring women... plentiful food... mmm...
You gotta cheer on the content-providing big boys here as opposed to the cable big boys. While it makes sense to even out the regulatory framework for cable vs. DSL, you'd hope that the more open DSL environment would prevail.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I guess this statement could sum up the situation.
"We work as a team, and we do it my way"
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Microsoft and Disney both see the advantages to un-tethered and relatively "free" (as in open road) access to the Internet for consumers. Cable companies, who are used to being able to "channel" information to passive users, do not, as it raises the bar on what they have to provide.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Many people might ridicule this - how much control can an ISP really have over their users? Sure, they might provide their own content, but users are smart enough to go their own way, right?
;)
I used to work for a large ISP and we found that a majority of our users thought their ISP connection would stop working if they changed their homepage to something other than us. That's how much power we had over our users - scary.
Kinda makes Microsoft look like the good guys - I feel a divide by zero error coming on!
Read reviews of shopping cart software
I believe that in due time, the Internet will grow to the level of public infrastructure, in the same way that we regard electricity and highways.
/Just an useless rant.
Only problem is, what kind of road (pun intended) are we going take to get there?
In the early days of paved roads, it was a mess until Uncle Sam wrote a bill saying that all Americans must have a smooth driving experience. When can we expect the same smooth packet delivery experience?
/.'s 10 Millionth
Amazon.com
Microsoft
Walt Disney
omg!! this is THE TRINITY OF EVIL!
If the FCC actually does put a crimp on the Internet, they can, of course, only regulate it INSIDE the U.S.
Which would mean, of course, that despite all our big talk about freedom we would be up there with China regarding the good old internet.
In Post-Soviet Russia, they still have real internet. =P
Just My Opinion.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Tux, The Gnu, BSD Devil,
and now Mickey Mouse?
opensource heros
I hate to point this out, but this is pretty unrelated to the **AA fights against consumers. I wish this COULD be seen as a precedent to help there, as I don't want to be told when, where and how I can or can't listen to music I bought the rights to listen to, but this is a different matter. An important matter, to be certain, but different. If their suggested regulation were to go through, from the sound of the original post, then there would be nothing stopping, say, Cox from setting up their proxy to watch for people going to MSNBC.com and redirecting them automatically to their strategic partner CNN.com. (JUST a hypothetical example!) -V
... "I read part of it all the way through." -- Movie Mogul Sam Goldwyn (and some slashdot readers)
I wish with every story the submitter or the editors would also put up the updated list of The Good Folks(TM) and The Evil Corporations(TM). It would make comment posting a whole lot simpler ;^)
I thought M$ version of 'innovators' is nothing more than buying and crushing competitors. Does this overrich mob ACTUALLY think FCC is going to take the advices seriously after all the M$ 'innovations' the antitrust trial has exposed? HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Who can forget Disney is the one who lobby for copyright extortion act? This is nothing more than a PR stunt, and FCC knows it! Thats why you cannot possibly believe anything good will come out of this internation band of consumer right terrorists.
It's quite simple... While these companies may be trying to kill their competiton, by killing off the "open" internet, they certainly are going to fight tooth-and-nail when it looks like someone else might beat them too it.
Think of the way Windows hadn't had any significant changes, until Apple went on full attack. Suddenly, Windows XP got a movie studio, and a new interface.
So, they may want the internet "closed" for their own purposes, but dammed if they'll let someone else do it!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Slashdot.org is carrying an article from me about the lobbying efforts of companies such as linux.org, gnu.org and fsf.org to stop Microsoft from "fundamentally altering the Internet. If that happens, they say, the Internet could evolve into a cable-TV-like system, where providers of operating systems could steer subscribers toward affiliated Internet sites. The OS owners could also limit the types of devices that could be connected to/installed into their OS, potentially stifling innovation."
:(
Oops. Too late
Of course the real reason they did that is probably so these potential broadband/DSL congolmerant companies couldn't start steering consumers toward Linux or other open source OSes because they can be cheaper.
Don't let anyone kid you, it's all always about money.
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs."
I get the sense that Disney wants to keep the Internet open because AOL Time Warner controls the pipes to a lot of homes, especially on the broadband market with both Road Runner and AOL Broadband. If the Internet evolves into another cable outlet (deities forbid) and the AOL channel steers people to Time Warner properties, what will happen to the Mickey Mouse stuff?
Disney also happens to own ESPN, and competition among sports web sites is huge.
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
Don't forget Amazon pulled the fast one on internet users with 1-click patent! You think Al-qaeda and Saddam Insane regime are bad? It is nothing compare to the terror this group have caused!!!
Disney wants to avoid a cable system-like internet? This from the company who is almost completely responsible for your cable bill going up every year (ESPNs fees go up 10-15% every year). I still dont see why. If its open they cant manage to force content upon users. But then again, they'd want to decrease any leverage the cable co's have so they can charge whatever they want.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Let's face it, WITHOUT regulation, these bozos can pull any shit they want and get away with it. Their worst NIGHTMARE is an FCC regulation MANDATING that users can connect any device they want to their cable/dsl connection and can run VPNs if they want to, for no extra charge.
I'm a girl too! See naked chicks in my journal!
The fact that the poster is surprised at the companies supporting this shows that they misunderstand the principles by which these companies operate. They have only one priciple -- to make money. Once you understand that, their behavior is clearly consistant. Their own freedom helps their bottom line, the freedom of others may hurt it.
1) Open AOL
2) Type Screenname/Password combo
3) Wait
4) Open (Mozilla||Opera||MSIE||links||and so on)
5) Enjoy the IntarWeb
Of course, if you don't want the IntarWeb, you can always open up your fave SSH/FTP/FastTrack/DC/whatever client.
AOL is, contrary to popular belief, an actual ISP.
They happen to provide shitty content as a side "benefit."
The previous sig has been removed due to
If they want to secure (screw up) the Internet for the sake of infrastructure, they should concentrate on securing (screwing up) Internet2 for government needs, and let the Intenet remain as it is. Wasn't that their plan before?
All terrorists use IPv4 anyway.
The problem is that most of the laws are being passed as Super-DMCA at the state level. They have to force the FCC to change the federal law or it will be over before it starts. Ok, Comcast, Verizon, etc.. don't control your internet access over federal laws. However, with Michigan for example, they can say you can't put a Firewall/NAT device on your Internet connection and you can't connect several computers at once. Just as powerful a control.
Maybe they've convinced themselves that there's more money for them to make by suing for intellectual property infringement than by actually making new stuff.
blog |
Microsoft's software freedom of choice initiative meant that we would have less freedom to choose. Now M$ among others have an initiative for an open network. It must mean that we will have a closed network!
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
With the internet, the jurisdiction is in the hands of the people. Big Company has no effect whatsoever, they can only cater to the demand of the people. Bob Doof has as much say as Big Corporation. This is why the internet kicks ass.
It does not take Scooby and the gang to figure out why this is occuring. If AOLTW is able to control thw who and where folk go, then MS and Disney are screwed.
...damn, no what was that witty sig again?...
Disney got nailed be the GO.bomb fiasco a few years ago, and they are just now getting back to the point of putting content back online. They HATE the idea of doing all of that work just to have AOLTW direct everyone away from it. MS is in the same boat, and with thier efforts on the hardware front, they would no like AOLTW dictating what hardware folk can buy from them. Oh, and what if AOLTW starts putting browser restrictions on content viewing. You how much Ms likes IE screwed with.
Strange bedfellows...for sure. But if it keeps the internet open and free, well that is a "good thing"...
Right?
...when Amazon, Microsoft and Walt Disney have to unite to defend freedom.
...just like electric charge. Microsoft is +10 AlwaysWinning(TM) Evil, while Amazon and Disney are both -5 OppressiveIP Evil. However note that by the Slashdot conventions, Microsoft is always twice as evil as any other company. Thus when Amazon, Disney and MS collaborate, all their evil cancels out and we can root for them.
;-)
Note that any branch of the government, the MPAA/RIAA etc. is -20 OppressiveIP Evil, twice as evil as MS, and so we can never root for them.
Next time RTFM
My other sig is also a
ScottK makes me poop! (forcefully... sharp objects... insertion... blood...)
How much power?
You can block addresses, you can restrict ports and protocols.
Seems as though you have a lot of power.
I think this it would be helpful to keep in mind that there are people and organizations out there -- both commercial and governmental -- that would like to see the Internet become more controllable. Just off the top of my head:
And so forth. Basically, there are many, many organizations who -- for reasons both noble and not -- wish to see this wild environment put under some sort of tighter control. Given the current political situation, where those with massive amounts of capital are able to shape these discussions, I would not be at all surprised to find the structure of I2 changed so that governments and large corporations have a much greater amount of control.
If there is a profit to be made in centralizing control of the internet I would imagine it will someday happen. If this can be combined with the "war on terrorism", such an outcome is almost guaranteed. The current distributed nature of the Internet can be changed or regulated. One need only look at China as an example of this, both pro and con.
The internet sees the FCC as an error and will route around it.
Coming next MSinternet 1.0: the only internet communication format that is optimized for speed and compatible with Windows IE. Yes it's mildly proprietary, but Microsoft insists that the 'old' internet needs to be dumped for security reasons!
Hunger is the best sauce.
By the nature of their efforts thay are most probably subtle and secretive.
Example.
* The person who worked on the Xbox motherboard who laid out all the exposed solder/no-solder points close to each other for bypassing the bios.
http://www.remix.net/
These companies are just taking the high road because they can't take the low road because they don't have the resources monopolies.
Does anyone think for a minute that if MS owned a major cable network that they would care about innovation? The only thing they'd care about is first expanding subscribers and then slowly cranking down the subscriptions to limit them to MS Home Terminal Software users only.
Disney hate the cable companies from a TV perspective because they keep getting sodomozed on access fees to get their channels onto cable systems.
Amazon may actually care about innovation, but only because if everyone gets steered to another shopping site Amazon's "one click" "innovation" won't mean anything.
Move along. There's nothing to see here but a bunch of companies crowing because someone *else* has the ability to steer and lockout, not because they actually give a shit about a free, open and innovative internet.
Test your vocabulary: 20 questions
20/20. Kick ass.
154 secs, though. Seems slow - didn't think I took that long.
How about being your own ISP? Co-ops are a possibility. Just lease a T1 with 9 or your neighbors and share it with a WiFi. A nice little whip antenna on your roof. The cost in the long run can be made cheaper than a cable modem. The only problem is someone has to run the show and fiddle with it, and keep enough subscribers in the pool.
Now when someone says you can't use a VPN or a Firewall, you can say take a hike. I'm the ISP-- The law is on my side.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
Microsoft Corporation today announced the beginning of a new program, aimed at preserving OpenSource software. "It's crucial to the continued existence of a secure Internet that we have OpenSource software like Linux out there, or there would be no Internet," Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer told reporters.
At the same time, a spokesman for a coalition between the RIAA and MPAA unveiled proposed legislation giving stricter penalties for bribing politicians, and, at the same time, promoting independent music. "Without valuable resources like Gnutella and Kazaa, independent artists would have no chance share their music. We want to make sure that doesn't happen," the unnamed spokesman claimed.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
"My God! It's full of..."
CowboyNeal.
All they want is to insure that regulation doesn't work against THEM. Just like Disney has their own channel that shows only Disney shows and doesn't run anyone else's commercials, they don't want a regulated internet that forces them to do anything.
It's not about open anything - it's about oligopoly.
Let's look at the issues, shall we?
Content providers want to make sure that the FCC doesn't do something which allows cable or telephone companies to set up rules which prohibit people from connecting to their content, which makes them revenue.
Hardware manufacturers want to make sure that the FCC doesn't do something which allows cable or telephone companies to set up rules which prohibit people from connecting the hardware they sell to a consumer's home network.
This isn't about the internet -- it's about the ISPs. Yes, the ISPs are connected to the internet, but this is just a peripheral thing. The FCC couldn't stop you if you signed up with a foreign company to get access over satellite, [phone calls would go through them, but this way, to avoid that part of the loop].
As for the bit about companies prohibiting WiFi, it was probably against the TOS or AUP for the ISP.... Most residential accounts don't allow sharing of connections to multiple systems. This just means that the consumer should go with an ISP that doesn't place this restriction on their account. [I use Speakeasy, personally... and before that, I was paying more for a business class line, until CAIS went under, and the company that bought them out tried screwing me over by doubling my rates on me].
As with anything else, you are buying a service from someone -- they might have conditions on that service, and if you violate it, they have the right to refuse you service. [ie, the 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' thing at most fast food establishments... although, why they don't require pants or some other similar covering, I have no idea].
Part of the issue may come from downstream liability issues -- if you put up a mail server, and you don't secure it, and become a third party relay for a spammer, they might get backlisted....if you connect up an unsecured WiFi node, and someone spams through your connection, they might get blacklisted, just the same. Personally, I'm okay with the companies putting restrictions on accounts so that they can remain profitable. It keeps them from having to raise prices for everyone else... And if they can't stay competitive, I'm sure there's other folks that aren't bloated and scamming their users, and provide better service, who can do it.
What I have issue with is the way that the ILECs aren't allowing Covad and other CLECs access to their facilities (it took multiple tries to get a damned pair of copper for when I went from SDSL to ADSL, because the CO was 'at capacity'... I'm just not buying it).
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
"Forcing vague regulatory requirements on broadband providers runs contrary to the spirit of the Internet and would only stifle investment, innovation and growth of broadband services,'' said National Cable and Telecommunications Association spokesman Brian Dietz."
IPDroids are desparately groping and here is what would happen if the fcc pushed the issue. The public would drop broadband and go dialup_bbs's_or_wirless/freenet_node_internet_gate way devices. I personally think the taxpayers are getting screwed by the fcc's limiting the range on wirless equipment, they are in effect saying, "we're keeping the telco's into business by limiting what the technology will offer, the ability to make irrelivent traditional wired connectivity shall be forbidden."
They are doing everything they can to make sure when it crashes, it'll be hard.
*checks the date*
*sees that it's not April 1st*
Ok, I must have drifted into a parallel universe last night while sleeping. I wasn't fatigued this morning like I normally am, my eyes are acting wonky, and monopolistic federalist companies (as I know them) are lobbying for openness and freedom.
Anyone have this happen to them before? Any idea how I can get back?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
In other news today:
George W. Bush and John Ashcroft to support a federal same-sex marriage bill...
Tibet to become independant within 48 hours, according to China's government...
FSF decides to disband, noting "Microsoft products are so vastly superior GNU has become a joke"...
Theo de Raadt decides to go back supporting NetBSD, cites "excellent security and portability"...
Film at 11.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Good reply!
I mean cryotank. Support open Internet or I won't be able to come back into being (as cyberchrist) Your high-speed links are vital for my neural net and my omnipresence. (insert more techno-babble here) :)
OK, ok, Ghost in the Shell and Matrix are going back on the shelf
Yay Amazon! Go Disney! Boooooo telecoms! I wonder who's gonna win? There's the snap... the telecoms try an end-around through state legislatures. Hollings (D-Disney) intercepts. Score!!! And the "voters" (ha-ha) go nuts!
Game results tonight on InterVision, 6:00, all channels.
Piracy isn't theft! I wouldn't have bought that Brittney Spears CD anyhow, so it's not like she lost a sale! It's not theft, I tell you! The DCMA [sic] is keeping me down! Bloody MPAA trying to keep me from... Oh, wait... I don't listen to Brittney. Or downloaded music. Shucks. I can't get my Karma Whore Bonus now... (see above post. ;)
-V
... "I read part of it all the way through." -- Movie Mogul Sam Goldwyn (and some slashdot readers)
At least, if it is, I find it odd that I'm using wal-mart's isp, which is basically a branded AOL setup. Much of their content is from compuserve, {portal.compuserve)which was bought out by AOL, IIRC.
I only pay half the price that AOLers pay, btw.
Which is why some providers want to control how you access the internet. Want to surf the web? Gotta go through the portal, no generic IP applications. Want to untether your access? No do-it-yourself WiFi, gotta lease their web tablet. Want to plug in multiple computers? Gotta lease a router from the provider.
The obvious implication is cost, of course. But what worries me is the free flow of information. Big media companies have a bad track record for providing equal access to all sources of information. It's not so much censorship as a desire to avoid offending kneejerk pressure groups, and thus losing business. Still, the effect is the same.
There's a certain irony to seeing Disney and Microsoft complaining about this trend. Disney owns go.com, which started out as Infoseek, a leading search engine; Disney spent billions in an unsuccessful attempt to create a click-monopoly. Microsoft owns MSN, which was originally an unsuccessful AOL clone, then became a struggling ISP and portal. If either company had had more success with their own attempts to monopolize clicks, they'd be singing a different tune!
Anyone who believes that big "for profit" companies would be doing this for any other motive than "for profit" needs a serious reality check. Contrary to the pathetically naive assertions of certain politicians, it's not always good versus evil. Sometimes, it's bad versus bad. Look beyond the immediate and ask yourself "What's the catch?"
At least then if anyone tried to stear you, you just called another provider.
I live in Michigan which I just found out is a SuperDMCA state, so here its absolute. I have to get permission from the electric company to plug in remotely controled lamps, or power-line ethernet.
I think the real power that an ISP could have is more in the way of bandwidth throtling certain sites,say CNN might pay a premium to keep their site on the fast proxy server while maybe MSNBC get stuck on the slow one. Or even better the address of other banner ad supplier's
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The cable-TV industry has said there's no reason to adopt such rules, because it has no intention of discriminating against Web sites or limiting new technologies.
So, we're supposed to take their word for that, right?
This is just one more example of why companies are completely hypocritical and can never be taken at their word. If MS, Amazon.com, and Walt Disney were in the position of AOL/TimeWarner, they would take *exactly* the opposite position. Worse yet, if they switched positions with AOL/TimeWarner, then they would switch to *exactly* the opposite position.
Lessig has talked about his in "The Future of Ideas".
None of these companies have the public interest in mind. Only *their* interest. They can make useful allies in the same sense that mercenaries make useful allies: temporary, unloyal, and certainly not trustworthy.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
*Walt* Disney supports an open Internet? Did they defrost him? ;-)
(OK. I know it's an urban legend.)
...it's called increasing shareholder value. That and obeying the law are the only responsibility corporations have. Corporations only take the public good as a secondary objective - if they believe in some instance that it will increase shareholder value they will say thay are doing something in the public good.
There is nothing wrong with this. We just have to remember that corporations are not people. They don't love your children and they are not obligated to "do the right thing." That's why we have markets - and when they fail or will take too long to take effect - government regulation.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
"same as the old boss."
can you guess who?
From the article:
The cable-TV industry has said there's no reason to adopt such rules, because it has no intention of discriminating against Web sites or limiting new technologies.
The cable-TV industry says there's no reason to put on a condom because they have no intention of coming in your mouth.
After all, I firmly believe that Microsoft's secret mission statement is, "To screw over the competition as well as the consumer by charging outrageous prices for value-removed products and marketing these to the extent that nobody has any choice but to suffer our wrath." I'm sure of this because two different people, who claim they don't know each other (but if you ask me, they look like identical twins and might in fact be the same person claiming to have two different names on the same day and during the same conversation) told me something like that a few years back, when I was an avid Microsoft supporter.
Obviously, these are merely my opinions and do not represent the opinions of any person or entity, including, but not limited to, my neighbors, my employer, my friends, my family, my fourth grade teacher Miss Focker, myself, or any other person or entity.
This post is satire and is copyright (c) 2003 by rice_burners_suck. All rights reserved, including, but not limited to, the right to read my own post, to print it out, to post it on /., to publish it in a local newspaper, or any other right, now known or later developed.
I just got done reading Lawrence Lessig's "The Future of Ideas." It explains pretty well what's going on right here.
Back when AT&T had a monopoly on both the phone lines and the devices that could and could not connect to them, there was nothing in the way of innovation. The network grew and evolved precisely the way AT&T desired, and everyone just assumed that they knew how best to evolve the network because they were the phone company for god's sake.
Then a few people on the inside came up with the idea that stupid, packet-switched networks would be much more efficient than "intelligent," connection-based networks. The intelligence built into each point of the system actually turned the whole into a rigid, inflexible system where a change in the operation at one point could cause unwanted effects throughout. The packet-switched network, on the other hand, would be robust and flexible because it was simple. Like today's (ideal) Internet, all the intelligence would be built into the systems at the "edge" of the network.
The Powers That Were recognized that this would be a better system. They also recognized that the system was more difficult to control. By building a packet-switched network, they would be creating their own biggest competitor.
Eventually, people started recognizing that AT&T was making decisions based on what was best for AT&T, not for the customers or the network. One of the critical points Lessig made was that, because nobody could install a new device onto the phone network without AT&T's express permission, nobody but AT&T bothered to research such devices. One of the saddest examples in the book was the lawsuit AT&T brought against a small company. It's only product was a small plastic clip that you could hook onto the handset to muffle ambient noise. However, it was being attached to AT&T's phone, and therefore was an illegal device that could not be installed on its network.
So when the monopoly was broken up, the scope of the phone company was limited. Customers were allowed to add whatever devices wouldn't disrupt the network for other users (think modems), and strict limits were placed on what the company could do. For example, they couldn't charge more for a call to an ISP than to a regular customer. So in a sense, the AT&T breakup is what allowed the Internet to overlay itself on top of the phone system.
The advantages of an open, equal-access Internet are obvious to everyone who doesn't own telecommunications infrastructure. Those companies are committing themselves to passing legislation like the new "Super DMCA" so that they can have absolute control over the networks they build out.
There are advantages to this, of course. Such regulations make it more likely that the money they invest in new infrastructure will return a good profit. Without that incentive, there is a lot of cable that would never be laid. On the other hand, when a programmer comes up with a really powerful new use for the Internet, companies which own the wires want to have veto power over that new innovation. If it doesn't serve their interests, they don't want to have to carry it. This ends up stifling overall innovation.
There are huge disadvantages to a truly stupid network, where no packet is ever analyzed and every spam has a clear path to your inbox. But even greater problems are inherent in a tightly controlled network where all things not forbidden are compulsory. But most of the problems of a free network can be limited by reworking the protocols used on the edge of the network. But if a cable Internet provider decides to limit you to ten minutes a month of streaming video so that you'll have an incentive to buy their TV package, there's nothing you can do short of switching providers.
As the AT&T breakup shows, regulation doesn't necessarily stifle innovation, and can actually help it to flourish. I'm fully in favor of limiting the sort of restric
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Yes, ultimately it comes down to the users, as long as the legal landscape doesn't get adjusted to support the aims of companies wanting to create restricted media portals at the expense of the open internet. The DMCA and copyright extensions are proof that they can pretty much get any legal agenda put into law, so I wouldn't be so complacent about the possibilities.
incripshin
It's only their freedom to make more money that they'll defend. They know the Rules of Acquisition. Hell, they wrote them.
I don't believe them for a minute. I think they're just trying to get on the inside, to shape the eventual regulations. Having done that, they'll be the ones doing it. I bet that's what they're using their legal and lobby muscle for right now.
if the main internet goes the way of pay per view this is exactly why wireless metro/urban area networks operating on the unlicensed bands will become important. they will spring up in greater numbers and become much more interconnected for the real people to use. letting the proles live with their data feed "internet" connection.
This kind of deep theological debate is better left until Tuesday, in you get my drift.
Just because you can't fathom teh many nuances of TEH PORTAL OF TEH ORACLE does not mean it is of no use. Many sage trolls accurately fathom the future by contemplating the granduer of the portal. How do you think the NSA knew ahead of time about the 9/11 attacks?
I don't mock your belief in an invisible omnipotent best friend. Please do the troll community the same favor and do not mock their beliefs.
Yrs,
Col. Furin Cheasheardr, (Mrs.)
but isn't the Internet designed to route around this kind of stuff? I mean, if the FCC were to, someday in the future, try to "fundamentally alter the Internet", wouldn't folks just pull out the back up copies of today's Internet, and ignore what the FCC was trying to do? I once read a great quote about the Internet, which basically stated that "the Interenet interprets censorship as damage; and routes around it." It seems to me like neither the FCC nor the companies listed can do anything to fundamentally alter the Internet...
The network owners could also limit the types of devices that could be connected to their network, potentially stifling innovation.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound like the Internet protocol that I know and love... I liken this situation to the start-up of AOL-like companies... lot's of people might describe the service as "internet-like", or the company as an "Interenet service provider"; however, it's not the Internet if it's running a proprietary protocol and doesn't use TCP/IP. Obviously, there are more details involved, but it seems like this article is a bit of hyperbole and sensationalism...
Holy crap, that's an advantage I didn't even see. LICENSED NEWBIES!!!
We could have learner permits where you have to go over to a tech guy's house and let him watch you post to newsgroups and web forums before you're allowed to have an Internet connection of your own.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Their interest in preventing ISPs from restricting access is that it may reduce the number of products from which they can receive revenue. Their motto is: "the Internet should be free to everyone and everything provided it is providing us with revenue."
I wrote a book about this more than 5 years ago (Playing for Profit). Here's a relevant quote....
"Open and Closed
Along with the bragging rights for bringing all of these cool services to as many people as possible, goes the right to control something we want no-one to control. In the movie Citizen Kane, when Charles Foster Kane states that "They think what I tell them to think," he means it. His power crosses all media.
It's not altogether different in the world of TV, cable, and radio. Though no -one has that kind of über-control over the totality of our entertainment choices, there are choke-points that do limit what we can watch. Each of the networks is, essentially, a scarce resource that the network controls to maximize its profit.
The four commercial TV networks control all of the material we watch on the only broadcast network that reaches everyone. There's no Gutenburg press to help the independent video producer. The four networks are the only way to reach that audience (therefore the only way to reach the advertisers who want that mass audience).
Similarly for cable, except there it's dominated by 2 companies: Time Warner Turner, and Tele-Communications Inc (TCI). If you want to have carriage on their systems, not only do you have to pay these operators for carriage, they will first have to approve your content.
And then there's the Internet. A truly open network, with no limits on what can be shared across the world. Anyone can be a publisher, anyone can be a broadcaster, and one can view whatever they want. The most open network ever devised.
Think about it. If you profited by controlling a scarce resource, such as access to a large number of cable TV households, what would you think about the possibility of a network that no-one can control and with no scarcity. Some pundits have already begun to question whether today's closed networks will be able to control the world's only open network. Because is they can convert the Internet to a closed network (pass through us if you want to publish), then it's probably in their economic self-interest to do so. Scarcity equals power. "Carriage is no big deal unless the network is a closed, scarce resource," says Tom Morgan
Which is why it matters who wins the war of the networks. If the networks remain separate, sometimes competitors and sometimes partners, then the Internet remains open. If any one of the networks wins the war, then sooner or later they'll find an excuse to close the network (we're just protecting the public).
The ghost of Charles Foster Kane continues to haunt us."
Since we all know anything Microsoft says will "stifle innovation" is really a good idea, of course all self-respecting geeks are going to stand opposite microsoft and disney on this issue. It's just part of MS & co.'s insidious scheme to close the internet via reverse psychology!
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
It's just as likely (I'd argue more likely) that they're still trying to protect their bottom-line.
Question 1: Who doesn't want movies to be edited for content? Film-makers. The film is their vision, their baby.
Question 2: What is the revenue stream for a movie production company based on? Films.
Question 3: If film-makers get angry at production companies for not protecting the "artistic integrity and vision" of films they produce, whose bottom line is hurt? The production companies.
Never forget that every business has two sets of people to please: their customers, and their suppliers. Without one or the other, you're fucked.
There's always other alternatives, although, there may be other restrictions on entry -- for instance, there's always broadband over satellite ... however, it's costly, and the latency sucks for interactive sessions. You do not have a right to broadband, just as you don't have a right to eat out.
As for water and telephone being an unrestricted pipe, you may think it is, but it's not.
Water -- ever lived in an area with a drought? We had one just last year in Maryland. What happened? You weren't allowed to use water for all sorts of things -- watering lawns, washing cars. [When I lived in Kentucky in 1998?99?, we had a drought, and someone had to go to the local government to get permission to water their house, as the clay soil was drying up, and their house was sinking]
The phone company is regulated, but they're also a bunch of bastards. They might have these great deals on long distance, but if you start abusing 'em, so they're losing money, they'll sell you off to someone else. They also don't like it much when you start making lots of local calls to other exchange carriers, as they get hit with reciprocal charges (remember that whole thing about how calls to ISPs were no longer considered local calls, so they could stop hemmoraging money to the CLECS that actually provided good service and low pricing on PRIs?)
Telecom also will meter usage, if you ask them. Personally, I don't make a whole lot of phone calls, so I have a limited line...calls in are free, but if I make more than 50 calls out per month, I get charged a few cents a call...of course, I'd have to make over 100 calls out per month to hit the same cost as an unlimited line. What's profitable is not telling people that this option is out there, so all of those people who only make a few calls a week from their land line (such as myself), think they have to pay more than they really do.
Oh...and that whole TV not being metered thing -- it's called pay-per-view. The thing is, they give you unlimited on some channels, so that they can then advertise the stuff that's more profitable to them. [and it's easy to only meter one part of the pipe, as this isn't like water... you're sending many differet signals over the same physical line, but that doesn't mean that someone can't tell the difference between 'em, or that they get mixed together].
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.