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."
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."
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.
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 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.
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.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
...when Amazon, Microsoft and Walt Disney have to unite to defend freedom.
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.