Plans to snatch t'Internet..?
Discussion
www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester
The End of the Internet?
by JEFF CHESTER
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.
Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.
Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.
To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine.
The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based capitalist economy."
The End of the Internet?
by JEFF CHESTER
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.
Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.
Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.
To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine.
The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based capitalist economy."
Andy Mac said:
So much for the internet being this whole entity of free speech, porn, and general mass communication, and discusion... It's now gonna make a fat cat even richer..
Bills always causing trouble www.physorg.com/news10481.html
Isn't a collaboration between various firms to control a market constituted as a Cartel? Ergo illegal?
I have read much of the literature on direct marketing via internet surveillance and it has its flaws to be honest. It's not the be-all-end-all marketing tool many would hope, not to mention unethical. - People have a right to privacy.
>> Edited by _VTEC_ on Monday 6th February 03:31
I have read much of the literature on direct marketing via internet surveillance and it has its flaws to be honest. It's not the be-all-end-all marketing tool many would hope, not to mention unethical. - People have a right to privacy.
>> Edited by _VTEC_ on Monday 6th February 03:31
Without sounding like I'm putting my head in the sand, and having worked in the IT and Telecomms arena for 14 years, I think it's very unlikely. The Internet is virtually past the point of no return, carriers will need to think of new chargable value added services rather than hijack the existing traffic.
The quantity and growth of e-commerce via the web would mean immense political pressure against any carriers that would look to damage the freedom of the web. Politicians have never been shy about slapping the wrists of major carriers, look at the way the US broke up the Bell corporation into all the 'baby' bells and how we have tied the hands of BT in this country to allow competitors to gain an unfair advantage.
The quantity and growth of e-commerce via the web would mean immense political pressure against any carriers that would look to damage the freedom of the web. Politicians have never been shy about slapping the wrists of major carriers, look at the way the US broke up the Bell corporation into all the 'baby' bells and how we have tied the hands of BT in this country to allow competitors to gain an unfair advantage.
mybrainhurts said:
Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.
And just exactly how long do they think it would take hackers to come up with a bit of software that would "upgrade" the priority of your packets?
pdV6 said:
Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.
And just exactly how long do they think it would take hackers to come up with a bit of software that would "upgrade" the priority of your packets?
not very easy as it would be done at the switching level. if priority was based on destination ip (eg packets going to google) then it would be very difficult to hijack.
i can't see these proposals going through. the article is fairly one sided. the telephone companies may have huge amounts of money to fund lobbyists but companies like google and ebay, and other companies who publish on the internet have huge funds for lobbyists as well and they won't want to pay a penny to the telcos.
FUGatso said:
Without sounding like I'm putting my head in the sand, and having worked in the IT and Telecomms arena for 14 years, I think it's very unlikely. The Internet is virtually past the point of no return, carriers will need to think of new chargable value added services rather than hijack the existing traffic.
The quantity and growth of e-commerce via the web would mean immense political pressure against any carriers that would look to damage the freedom of the web. Politicians have never been shy about slapping the wrists of major carriers, look at the way the US broke up the Bell corporation into all the 'baby' bells and how we have tied the hands of BT in this country to allow competitors to gain an unfair advantage.
I have to agree with you....
To be honest the article posted is a load of rubbish. Its sensationalist in the extreme and talks about the Internet a something that the US owns and controls (which it does to a certain degree, but not as a whole entity it doesnt!). The systems that would be used to track and control everything would be so huge that the world has not seen their size before..... in fact we would struggle to ever produce anything even slightly close....
Its all rubbish and I am not at all worried. Take a company like BT - major shift in its revenues and focus - its on content, network access and convergence - not on charging you and I £20 to get broadband at home!!!! They make so little money do this that its not worth bothering - its only worthwhile because it lays the foundations to their next stage - VoIP in every home, integrated mobile and home phone, advanced telephony services, etc etc.... that is the next stage of premium services.....
Charge on a tiered access to the internet? Phah - never heard such rubbish...
Some Prat called Ed said:
As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
What is this fruitbat on? What is this, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" cr@p? Because they pay FFS! What twisted illiterate concept, oh! I'm sure google hook their servers up with a few crocodile clips and "steal" bandwidth. NOT!
TeamD said:
As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
What is this fruitbat on? What is this, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" cr@p? Because they pay FFS! What twisted illiterate concept, oh! I'm sure google hook their servers up with a few crocodile clips and "steal" bandwidth. NOT!
Nah, what they do is have their modems dialed up locally to an ISP (free phone calls in local area in US) and do it that way.... why, they dont need anything more than a few Kbps bandwidth do they?
>> Edited by off_again on Monday 6th February 13:00
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff