R.I.P. Internets

[The Man]

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided to abandon net neutrality and allow telecoms companies to charge websites for access.

The FTC said in a report that, despite popular support for net neutrality, it was minded to let the market sort out the issue.

This means that the organisation will not stand in the way of companies using differential pricing to make sure that some websites can be viewed more quickly than others. The report also counsels against net neutrality legislation.

"This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving dynamic industry of broadband internet access, which is generally moving towards more, not less, competition," FTC chairman Deborah Platt Majoras wrote.

"In the absence of significant market failure, or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area."

The report has caused outrage in the online community. Many are worried that any abandonment of net neutrality will harm competition, since it will allow big companies to outspend start-ups.

"Mostly the FTC suggests ways that the telephone and cable companies could have new ways to make money from content and applications providers," said Art Brodsky, of internet advocacy group Public Knowledge.

"Or lower-income subscribers could be charged lower prices, subsidised by 'prioritization revenues' much as supported email services now provide free email accounts. Nowhere is there discussion of what the consumer gets out of the deal."

source: vnunet.com

**** the FTC and **** the not-even-remotely-free market.

[Akira Avelon]

That I say.. Is utter BULL****!!! I'm working full time and I can't afford more **** than I already do... They're just looking to make an easy buck. Plain and simple.

[The Dude]

****ING HELL! Well we might soon have to kiss this place good bye one day unless the owner either pays up or moves the server to a different nation. So long freedom of speech too.

[Akira Avelon]

thing is.. If the mass majority say hell no.. I don't think It'll happen.. I don't think these internet people would want to lose business.. Whatever the customer wants.. They better get.. Or you lose profits that you're already receiving... I don't think this will go through if alot of people hate the idea.

this is my two cents.. I can be proven wrong.

[The Man]

I'd like to believe that consumers could always get what they wanted, but unfortunately the "market" these people are talking about is nothing like an actual free market. Competition in the internet provider business is virtually nonexistent; therefore what we have is actually much more like a heavily controlled market. Competition could be provided if someone were able and willing to start up a new service provider, but it would require massive amounts of money to do so, and where is anyone going to come up with that kind of money? It's simply not going to happen. However, from my understanding of things, even if someone went to the expense of building a new service provider, the connections that already exist in the Internet wouldn't transfer data from "the wrong" sources any faster. In other words, the only way to ensure fair data transfer rates would be to build an entirely new Internet.

The phrase "government-regulated monopoly" is an oxymoron. The monopoly regulates the government, not the other way around. It's a retarded idea, but that's what we get when we live in a country with a government comprised of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations. It just sucks that our country has to burden everyone else's by virtue of its control of the Internet.

[Akira Avelon]

Heh.. that's the States for you.. They ruin everything for everyone else most of the time..... Present company that come here from the states are excluded...

[Jenova]

All I have to say is that's really ****ing retarded.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Akira Avelon

Heh.. that's the States for you.. They ruin everything for everyone else most of the time..... Present company that come here from the states are excluded...

It's the government that should be blamed really, not the people who live here. Most of us don't like it any more than the rest of you do, but our government isn't a democracy, despite what it claims; it's a corporatocracy.

[Larsa]

****ING HELL!!!! ****ING PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN CONTROL THE DAMN NET.

[Obsidian Tides]

*generic riotous uproar*

but really, i suppose it'd be best to just see how something like this plays out before we take to the streets or mourn the late Internet's passing.

[The Dude]

10-1 odds says that at the next senate meeting, Ted Stevens recommends to put routers in the tubes to divide information. 10-1

[Larsa]

When does this probably go into effect?

[The Man]

It'll probably take a few weeks before we see any changes. I dunno. It's possible the market will actually respond to the concerns of its consumers... but I doubt it. Most people don't have much choice between service providers.

[Larsa]

Well there'll be a ENORMOUS uproar among the world. It can't possibly last.

[EoT]

I kinda don't understand what this is. I read it and all I got was that we may have to pay for access to specific websites? Can someone explain this to me? :X

[The Man]

Basically, odds are that service providers are going to implement a scaled system where some web sites will load much faster than others, depending on how much they pay to the telecom companies. It benefits established corporate oligarchies, but it does not benefit the consumer in the slightest.

[Kionae]

Originally Posted by The Man

It benefits established corporate oligarchies, but it does not benefit the consumer in the slightest.

What a shock. So how long til they finally start taxing email?

[The Man]

at this rate, it's only a matter of time.

[Ravioli]

Lol @ America.

Still on AOL?
Mind if we LOL?

[The Man]

LOL all you want now, but odds are this affects all of you.