FTC wants to get rid of Net Neutrality

[someguy]

For those who aren't aware, net neutrality basically means that you can surf the internet without discrimination (aka go anywhere you want at the same speed and service as anywhere else). Once net neutrality is gone, internet companies can now act for what's in their best interests. Let's say Verizon makes a deal with Microsoft, with net neutrality gone they can make Google search and Google owned sites like Youtube inaccessible on their network or make it slower to load. This is in order to force the user to use the ISP sponsored sites instead and therefore give the ISP more money. It could get worse depending on how far the companies will go. What if Fox makes a deal with AT&T, and then AT&T decides that the only news sites people can access properly are Fox owned? What if the same is done with Time Warner, making CNN sites the only news sites accessible? Hopefully this won't happen, but making it available to do isn't good.

FTC abandons net neutrality

End of the internet as we know it
Iain Thomson, vnunet.com 02 Jul 2007
Click Here

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."

Hopefully the people will protest this if/when it starts up.

[QUENTIN]

If this happens, we're all fucked. The internet was the last bastion of real free speech, where any schmuck (or schmoe) with a connection could be heard by potentially everyone else and the everyman was equalized with corporate giants. Without net neutrality, that just vanishes.

[Jon Lyrik]

Motherfuckers.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by someguy

Hopefully the people will protest this if/when it starts up.


Ya and how are they going to do that when I can't even find this news on the FTC site?

This is the closest I could find on the subject that is most recent:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/08/neutrality.shtm


http://search.ftc.gov/query.html?st=1&rf=1&charset=iso-8859-1&col=news&qt=net+neutrality



Its amazing how a movie comes out that states how easily corporations can have corrupt business practices and continue those practices by buying off politicians through their lobbyists, and the FTC still thinks, "Yeah, lets leave this issue in the hands of those people because they'll have the people's best interests at heart and NOT their shareholders."
:rolleyes:


I'm disgusted.


I'm writing an angry email.

[Thrizzle]

Corporate control has gotten out of hand in the past 6 years. This isnt about the free market, oligopolies have controlled the market and even the government for years now.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Hitler has a chubby for something other than Ann Coulter right now.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Corporate control has gotten out of hand in the past 6 years. This isnt about the free market, oligopolies have controlled the market and even the government for years now.

It's been like that for a lot longer than six years.

[outsyder]

This is disappointing to hear, but entirely expected. Hopefully, there will be at least a few ISP's looking to grow their business based on promoting themselves as neutral in the future.

[shoe1985]

I remember in high school we were learning about the Internet 2. At the time, the plan was to make it very one sided on issues and things, and they would remove the internet altogether. The government doesn't like it when people voice their opinions with a large group of people. Do you honestly believe we would understand why healthcare in the states suck without the internet? Doubtful because people can actually speak to me that know what the problems are. Do you think people would know why most middle class jobs are gone without the internet? Doubtful because a lot of the people on the inside are posting that jobs are being outsourced to other countries.

Now there are downfalls of the internet. Piracy for one has gone rampant. In a few more years, I doubt there will be a music industry. People will release songs online, but there won't be the music companies to distribute or promote them. The movie industry has started feeling what the music industry has. More and more people are getting better equipment, and are now downloading high quality dvd rips of movies before they get released.

[Jim H]

From my understanding of what actually happened, they simply refused to make net neutrality law - in other words, they continued the status quo. It's not a good thing, but I think it is being blown a bit out of proportion.

[The Postmaster General]

Well, I'll always have my HAM radio.

[jeo4]

Yet another wonderful infringement on civil liberties.

[someguy]

If you want to help in some way, there is a website that is trying to let the FCC know that the people do not want net neutrality to go away.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

There's 4 days left. Although having that creepy Tron dude promoting for it on your site isn't exactly the best idea.

[Jon Lyrik]

This may be the only political topic that's worth a damn. The internet is the only tool of true egalitarianism.

[Scarface98.9]

It's really insulting that this is even coming up and even being discussed honestly. I can believe that we're doing well in Iraq before believing that there is any benefit to this

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by someguy
There's 4 days left. Although having that creepy Tron dude promoting for it on your site isn't exactly the best idea.


Whoa! Are you familiar with JohnnyTV (the one from North Carolina), someguy?

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Now there are downfalls of the internet. Piracy for one has gone rampant. In a few more years, I doubt there will be a music industry. People will release songs online, but there won't be the music companies to distribute or promote them. The movie industry has started feeling what the music industry has. More and more people are getting better equipment, and are now downloading high quality dvd rips of movies before they get released.

That really doesn't seem like much of a downfall to me. Its both the music and movie industries faults that piracy is the way it is. Now I myself like to pay to see movies cause I'm a nerd and love the theatre experience.... but I don't blame anyone but Hollywood and it's greedy little hands for creating the problem at hand.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by boombche_stum
That really doesn't seem like much of a downfall to me. Its both the music and movie industries faults that piracy is the way it is. Now I myself like to pay to see movies cause I'm a nerd and love the theatre experience.... but I don't blame anyone but Hollywood and it's greedy little hands for creating the problem at hand.

Why? They charge a price they feel works, and if you don't want to pay for it, don't. Just don't steal from them. People forget both industries are businesses. You know, places where people go to make a living. People will get screwed, but what else is new about working? People get screwed all the time.

They put out a product and expect to get paid. Lets have a story, lets say you are in a grocery store, you see an apple you want, so you take it. Why not? The industry is greedy for charging so much for an apple. You take it, and a person loses his job because the company is losing money from people stealing its apples, aka piracy.

People forget these industries offer jobs. A place to make a living, so our families can continue to eat.

If you feel the price is too high, look for alternative product, or go without.


These are reasons why these industries are pushing for these laws. People can't seem to understand how wrong downloading music and movies really is. Look at how many music stores have closed in the past few years. Theaters are starting to feel the impact of this now because people are getting faster connections and can download a pretty good looking movie in less than an hour. Plus, they can make dvds out of them. I am not even talking about cam movies.

If they do go through with this stuff, it is your own fault. It is like in Iraq, people are given all this freedom at once, and how do they use it? They go nuts and instead of people killing people, we are just taking jobs away from each other.

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Why? They charge a price they feel works, and if you don't want to pay for it, don't. Just don't steal from them. People forget both industries are businesses. You know, places where people go to make a living. People will get screwed, but what else is new about working? People get screwed all the time.

They put out a product and expect to get paid. Lets have a story, lets say you are in a grocery store, you see an apple you want, so you take it. Why not? The industry is greedy for charging so much for an apple. You take it, and a person loses his job because the company is losing money from people stealing its apples, aka piracy.

People forget these industries offer jobs. A place to make a living, so our families can continue to eat.

If you feel the price is too high, look for alternative product, or go without.


These are reasons why these industries are pushing for these laws. People can't seem to understand how wrong downloading music and movies really is. Look at how many music stores have closed in the past few years. Theaters are starting to feel the impact of this now because people are getting faster connections and can download a pretty good looking movie in less than an hour. Plus, they can make dvds out of them. I am not even talking about cam movies.

If they do go through with this stuff, it is your own fault. It is like in Iraq, people are given all this freedom at once, and how do they use it? They go nuts and instead of people killing people, we are just taking jobs away from each other.

The analogy of a grocery store hardly works. Farmers don't get 30 million per shipment of apples and I have yet to see signs of Farmer and grocery store greed. And yes, I understand it's an industry.... but it screwed itself. Is there any reason a budget for ANY movie should be 300 million dollars? No. But because the suits gained control of the whole mess, they throw money around on these movies like it grows on trees (much like apples do).... which is completely unecessary.... and then raise prices. On top of that, the movie industry, much like the music industry... failed to keep up with technology. The internet is a powerful tool they could've taken advantage of ages ago but decided not to, its not an enemy of the state.

And don't pull some sympathy card on me. Industry greed isn't something we should accept as a standard. They had a system that worked just fine... but the prospect of more cash in their pockets let them lose sight of the people who pay for their product.

The music industry did it to themselves too. They purposely phased out singles so people would have to buy an entire album for maybe ONE song (which you can read plenty of articles on). And yet again, the suits took over. They made the call to do it, they didn't want to utilize the internet in a way that could've helped them.... that's their loss. Now, they're starting understand how powerful the digital age has become through digital sales which have been on the rise for years now, drastically.

As far as looking for an alternative product, what choice do people really have? You think the music industry wants anything less than to shut down every music site on the internet and make people pay 13$ for something that cost a couple cents to make (Tapes cost more to make than CD's)?

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by boombche_stum
The analogy of a grocery store hardly works. Farmers don't get 30 million per shipment of apples and I have yet to see signs of Farmer and grocery store greed. And yes, I understand it's an industry.... but it screwed itself. Is there any reason a budget for ANY movie should be 300 million dollars? No. But because the suits gained control of the whole mess, they throw money around on these movies like it grows on trees (much like apples do).... which is completely unecessary.... and then raise prices. On top of that, the movie industry, much like the music industry... failed to keep up with technology. The internet is a powerful tool they could've taken advantage of ages ago but decided not to, its not an enemy of the state.

And don't pull some sympathy card on me. Industry greed isn't something we should accept as a standard. They had a system that worked just fine... but the prospect of more cash in their pockets let them lose sight of the people who pay for their product.

The music industry did it to themselves too. They purposely phased out singles so people would have to buy an entire album for maybe ONE song (which you can read plenty of articles on). And yet again, the suits took over. They made the call to do it, they didn't want to utilize the internet in a way that could've helped them.... that's their loss. Now, they're starting understand how powerful the digital age has become through digital sales which have been on the rise for years now, drastically.

As far as looking for an alternative product, what choice do people really have? You think the music industry wants anything less than to shut down every music site on the internet and make people pay 13$ for something that cost a couple cents to make (Tapes cost more to make than CD's)?

A cd might cost cents to make, but what about the music that gets put on the cd? You have to remember you need people to make the music: writers, producers, engineers, and the list could on on. Then you need people to actually put the music on the cd, so you need factories.

Just like any business, it takes money, to make money. They have control over what they own, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

How would you like it if someone came to your house, lets say took your tv which you are selling, and they say you are pricing it too high. You would probably call the cops and have them arrested. It is your property and you will charge what you feel is reasonable.

If you don't like the fact that they charge a certain price, don't listen to music, or find someone that will play their music for free. People forget the music industry, and movie industry, are in business to make money. Prices rise all the time, and so they will naturally raise prices. In fact, cds at one time cost $20 or more. You can find a cd for $10 or less if you actually got off your butts and looked.

There is an outside world that doesn't need computers. You can go outside and shoot some hoops. Call friends and play football, or go for a walk.

Also, with the movie industry. Companies don't need to make $100 million movies. I agree, but hey that is how they do business. If the movies looks like crap, or the reviews are bad, we have the option not to watch it. Just like we have the option not to listen to a certain genre of music.

The fact of the matter is this, they own the property, not you or me. If they want to sell it for a price, we either accept that price, and buy the product, or we don't, and we just go on with our lives without buying it.

You see that is how a business works. Someone makes something, they sell it, and we buy it. This creates jobs for you and me, so we can feed our families. If we take something for free, when it is being priced for a profit, we are taking jobs away, and sooner or later, we will be struggling to find employment so we can buy food for our families. Welfare can't cover everyone.

[someguy]

I had to read up on the whole RIAA downloading debacle a few months ago and to be honest, they're not suffering too much.

If you look at their sales figures since 1995 or so (it's available right on the RIAA site), there's a peak between 1998 and 2001 or so. From then on, it just mellowed out and began dropping down to a more reasonable level. They're actually making more now than they were 10 years ago, so it's not exactly as dire as the record company puts it.

Where the real suffering starts is in the sale of CD Singles. People are more prone to download one song or two rather than an album, so that's where the companies lost the most. However, not many people in the public really purchase CD Singles anyways and the sales for legal downloads of singles are skyrocketing thanks to iTunes and other similar programs.

I'm not denying that downloading has an effect on the industry though, I just think that it isn't going to get to the point of people losing their jobs because of it.

Oh yeah, I should mention that the RIAA released their 06 figures a few months ago and they found a total increase in sales.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by someguy
I had to read up on the whole RIAA downloading debacle a few months ago and to be honest, they're not suffering too much.

If you look at their sales figures since 1995 or so (it's available right on the RIAA site), there's a peak between 1998 and 2001 or so. From then on, it just mellowed out and began dropping down to a more reasonable level. They're actually making more now than they were 10 years ago, so it's not exactly as dire as the record company puts it.

Where the real suffering starts is in the sale of CD Singles. People are more prone to download one song or two rather than an album, so that's where the companies lost the most. However, not many people in the public really purchase CD Singles anyways and the sales for legal downloads of singles are skyrocketing thanks to iTunes and other similar programs.

I'm not denying that downloading has an effect on the industry though, I just think that it isn't going to get to the point of people losing their jobs because of it.

Oh yeah, I should mention that the RIAA released their 06 figures a few months ago and they found a total increase in sales.

Lets look at it a little differently. How many songs are pirated daily? Probably millions. That is millions in dollars lost that could be going to find better artists, or paying the current artists more.

[someguy]

In 1995 it was one or two years after the first mp3 was created and filesharing did not exist. Right now America is making more in sales than it was back then so it's not exactly that big of an issue.

[The Heart Collector]

The internet is not over you paranoid loonies.

[someguy]

I didn't say that, the US is just getting one step closer to having their citizens lose net neutrality.

[Vong]

Can I scream "corporate fascism" yet?

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by someguy
In 1995 it was one or two years after the first mp3 was created and filesharing did not exist. Right now America is making more in sales than it was back then so it's not exactly that big of an issue.

How many people do you know that still purchase music? I know very few. They say, "Hey, why buy, when I can get the same quality for free?"

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
The internet is not over you paranoid loonies.

It isn't, but it may just get fucked in the ass.

Lets look at it a little differently. How many songs are pirated daily? Probably millions. That is millions in dollars lost that could be going to find better artists, or paying the current artists more.

Yeah, except that's not happening. The pop industry sucks more ass than ever. I can name the good popular bands on one hand.

The industry did it to themselves. And I say good, after several decades of screwing over artists out of their money, the fat cats can use a fork in the stomach. The engineers can work for independent artists and companies now that are considerably less unethical. Sure, they won't make as much money, boo-hoo.

[someguy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shoe1985
How many people do you know that still purchase music? I know very few. They say, "Hey, why buy, when I can get the same quality for free?" [/QUOTE

Don't pull a Lynn7 on me here. Anecdotes aren't going to make the facts disappear.

In 2005, iTunes was as popular as illegal P2P programs (http://news.com.com/Study+iTunes+more+popular+than+many+P2P+sites/2100-1027_3-5735493.html). iTunes has only been gaining in use and popularity since then. In 2006, full album downloads on legal sites more than doubled in just the first half of the year (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/07/08/downloading-music.html), along with total downloads in the first half increasing by 77 percent.

P2P programs are usually riddled with spyware, fake files, bad quality music and plenty of record company spies trying to sue whoever gets their file. I think there are a lot of people who are either frustrated with the crap quality things like Kazaa or Limewire give them or just naturally/morally against P2P downloading. This is just what I think though, not gonna say it's a fact (I don't wanna come off hypocritical here using something more based on anecdotes when I just shot that down :)).

[shoe1985]

Don't pull a Lynn7 on me here. Anecdotes aren't going to make the facts disappear.

In 2005, iTunes was as popular as illegal P2P programs (http://news.com.com/Study+iTunes+more+popular+than+many+P2P+sites/2100-1027_3-5735493.html). iTunes has only been gaining in use and popularity since then. In 2006, full album downloads on legal sites more than doubled in just the first half of the year (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/07/08/downloading-music.html), along with total downloads in the first half increasing by 77 percent.

P2P programs are usually riddled with spyware, fake files, bad quality music and plenty of record company spies trying to sue whoever gets their file. I think there are a lot of people who are either frustrated with the crap quality things like Kazaa or Limewire give them or just naturally/morally against P2P downloading. This is just what I think though, not gonna say it's a fact (I don't wanna come off hypocritical here using something more based on anecdotes when I just shot that down :)). [/B][/QUOTE]

I am just saying, I don't know anyone that pays for music anymore. Everyone gets their music from a p2p network, and don't pay for it.

Do you purchase music or get it illegally?

[someguy]

That's just who you know though. I know people who download, but I'm in Canada where it's legal to download so there are definitely more who use P2P programs.

As for me, I use downloading to find what I like and then buy what I do enjoy. I'm glad for P2P and BitTorrent type sites to happen because I wouldn't even be half as knowledgeable about music if they didn't exist.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Yeah, except that's not happening. The pop industry sucks more ass than ever. I can name the good popular bands on one hand.

The industry did it to themselves. And I say good, after several decades of screwing over artists out of their money, the fat cats can use a fork in the stomach. The engineers can work for independent artists and companies now that are considerably less unethical. Sure, they won't make as much money, boo-hoo.

In the end us, the consumer, will lose out. How would you like to go into work and be told you are going to make less money because your customers feel you make too much money? We should be moving forward, not backwards.

Do you like being told what you should be doing with your money? I doubt it. I know I get my paycheck and spending it on stuff I want. Being a college student I don't make much, so every dollar counts. We just had a raise in the minimum wage here in PA, and people are complaining now because prices are going up. Well yes because naturally someone is going to lose money, so they have to make up for it. It helps people like me because guess what? I can afford to buy more things, and save more money.

In fact, prices have been on the rise here for a while, and it gets harder to pay the bills with what I make. I am using this because I don't like being told I shouldn't get a raise so others should benefit. I work, I expect to get paid. People I work with get paid more than me because they might do a job that requires them to do something that could be dangerous in the workplace, yet I work much harder. Is it right? Nope, but that is how it works. You work harder to get farther ahead in life.

We might disagree with how much money people make, but you forget, what if that was you making the money? I know I wouldn't want people saying I make too much money. I would be putting more money into finding new and better artists though.

Like you said about not knowing most of the artists out right now, I don't either. I will admit I don't purchase like I used too because music isn't that good right now. That is why you buy artists that release good music.

If I was an artist, I would look for a different career because very few leave as millionaires.