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
The mentioned companies will acquire broadband infrastructure, and two years from now will be lobbying for the opposite goal.
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 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)
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
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.
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!
You hit it right on the nose at the end. They are afraid that someday AOL will do the same thing that TimeWarner once did - refuse to sign the contract to allow Disney's channels on their cable system. It was about a year or two ago that the two had a standoff, and TimeWarner eventually blinked since they were required to carry ABC.
Disney wants to deal with you directly, since they know how to market to people directly. And they know how to get the money from you directly. They run into problems when they have to deal with a middleman (like AOL-TW) who is also a competitor.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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.
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/
That's just not true though. The track record of RIAA and MPAA should show that, sometimes, they take action against things that clearly help their bottom-line. It's debatable if p2p helps RIAA sell CDs, so let's avoid that one. How about MPAA trying to shutdown clean-flix, which would mean parents would buy more movies, because they could allow their children to watch, without the sex/violence/(al)gore/etc.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
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!
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.
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...