Blair is an utterly discredited prime minister. He's a well intentioned fool - David Starkey
|
|
|
Net neutrality will die in the US
INTERNET DEMOCRACY is set to be crushed and hopes for an Internet that is fair and open to all look doomed as Republican senators push legislation that will force antitrust like laws on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
If signed into law by President Barack Obama the bill introduced yesterday will end the FCC's efforts to ensure that the Internet remains neutral, operated on the basis that access to it cannot be controlled. Instead it looks likely that the large telecom firms and other broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) will be able to discriminate against content providers, services and their own subscribers, and then fight to maintain that discrimination for years in the courts.
The antitrust legal framework, while sounding good in theory, is always going to be retrospective, and the FCC will have to show that consumer welfare cannot be promoted by marketplace competition. Even an FCC rule established to stop ISPs from discriminating will have to be reviewed after five years to see if market conditions are effecting that change anyway. But it will not be market failure but ISPs' policies that will be causing the problems.
Restrictions of content and the prioritisation of some data over others is going to take place and by the time such actions can be overturned legally the damage will already have been done.
The legislation looks like it is designed to head off hearings the FCC has scheduled to examine the issues of net neutrality.
In typically Orwellian language, the bill is to be known as the Freedom for Consumer Choice Act. Here the word 'freedom' is being used rather like authoritarian states use the word 'Democratic' in their names, such as the German Democratic Republic, also known as Communist East Germany.
The FCC has warned that net neutrality is under attack from dark forces by which it meant the elected representatives of big business, commonly known as US Senators and Representatives. µ
Share this:
Share
Thanks to Jake Storms for the tentative explanation he posted. However it may still be insufficient for me (it may be clearer for a native English speaker, but this site, having "www" (WORLD WIDE web) in its address, must be intended for everyone on the planet). Trying to understand:
« Jim DeMint says NO ("fights") to NOT increasing ("reduce") the LACK OF freedom of local people ("the power of our centralized authrority")...
So, after deciphering (or trying) this chain of negations, I "understand" that Jim DeMint is AGAINST freedom of local people. Is this convoluted parlance a way to conceal another attempt at citizens' freedom? Anyone can explain one step further? TIA,
Versailles, Sun 01 Aug 2010 20:44:35 +0200
The internet's growth and vibrancy has everything to do with it being the most comprehensive form of communication that mankind has ever developed, but you're willing to credit the "free market" for it's success. The free market doesn't expedite communication, technology does. furthermore your assertion that net neutrality (a type of regulation) will make the internet "suffer" (since all regulation makes industries suffer, apparently) is a baseless one. You haven't explained how or why the internet would suffer (it's been regulated for six years all I see it do is grow) and this is because your assertion is totally unfounded. If you have a rationale for it, (I am certain it won't be logical) then please share it and have me waste my time by reading it. There's always some idiot thinking free market principles should be applied to everything; let's have a fireman swipe my card before putting out the flames on my children's backs
"You're another of those fools who believes free market principles always work out for the best."
The Internet is the only REAL "free market" industry that has existed since it was became popular in the early 90's. So your argument has issues when you take into account the growth and vibrance of it in this mostly until VERY RECENTLY unregulated industry. Once you start to regulate the internet it WILL SUFFER! Pure and Simple. There is always someone with money looking to disrupt unregulated markets. Most regulation tends to help keep the disruptors capital investment and disruption out. Pure and simple. It just get more expensive and advancement and growth start to stagnate. Regulate the internet in all countries and all the web will be like it is in China today in every country eventually.
"Such matters were to be left upto each state and locality according to our constitution."
Internet is GLOBAL, just like any other form of communication -- it cannot be governed by your local sheriff. There has to be a governing body.
Free market principle so far only brought us oligopoly, cartels, and monopoly with the illusion of choice.
"The most neutral internet is the one devoid of any and all regulation and decided purely by competition in the marketplace"
That's the furthest thing from neutral! It is so plain that u do not understand. You're another of those fools who believes free market principles always work out for the best. There is no market, there are only people with agendas who dictate the fate of everything in the market by consolidation. Markets tends towards oligopoly or monopoly and markets don't work without competition. By allowing ISP's to degrade the quality of service to YOUR website they are artificially impacting on it's success simply by prioritising other sites over your own. This is not neutral and you do not understand net neutrality.
I don't hold any confidence in the US government to "protect" citizens' rights, as they seem to have done their best to erode them with the "DMCA" and the "Patriot Act" and now will have the similarly-euphemistically-named "Freedom for Consumer Choice Act" placed before them for their voting pleasure.
Hopefully Google will come to our rescue, as the United Salesmen of America seems to be run by, um, salesmen.
Every week the internet manages to survive is another magical week, ALL the politicians know about the internet and so do ALL the CEO's of mega-companies, and when those people know about something they will seek to sour it and mess it up and make sure nobody has fun or freedom, that is their life and dedication.
I am here in the USA and can tell you that we do NOT need more regulations from the FCC. I also grew up in regions this Rural Broadband plan is supposed to be helping. The problem is that people in those parts of this country(my family) aren't hugely concerned about their broadband connection and MOST would rather the rest of the country NOT incur higher taxes to get them affordable broadband. Most of the people from these areas prize political figures like Jim DeMint who introduced this bill.
Jim DeMint fights to reduce the power of our centralized authrority in this country. Org's like the FCC regularly exert powers that go far beyond our constitution explicitly allowed. All the efforts for Rural Broadband and Net Neutrality force regulations from the federal government that were never intended to be matters under the authority of washington. Such matters were to be left upto each state and locality according to our constitution.
To reduce the regulation related to providing services such as broadband and internet access only helps increasee the chance smaller enterprises can enter that market and disrupt it without getting in trouble with some central authority being manipulated by lobbiests owned by bigger companies. That is what Jim DeMint is trying to accomplish here. It doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum is trying to regulate or internet. The regulations will be essentially written by who ever has the most lobbiests messing with the process of creating regulations. The most neutral internet is the one devoid of any and all regulation and decided purely by competition in the marketplace.
DeMint whole effort is to try and stop new regulations that will just serve to confuse and obfuscate what is legal and not legal when it comes to providing internet so you have to pay millions toward law firms to help you stay with in the legal side of regulation or argue that you are if it's not clear. The whole reason the internet has become so popular is because it has yet to be regulated like services such as Telephone, Radio, and Television. Lets quit being retarded about net neutrality laws EVER ENDING UP NEUTRAL in ANY country. Any government will try and decide what you can and cannot see on your internet connection as soon as you allow them to start dictating any aspect of it.
is actually just the most obnoxious wing of the Corporatists, of a gov't owned by corporations, with open policy of private profits but if their gambles fail, taxpayers make up losses: in a word, fascism. How this particular item will end up is unclear since most of the manuevering *between* corporatists is hidden, but it's safe to say that the public won't be pleased when the truth comes out.