Quake3World

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:26 pm**

Has anybody heard about this?

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/disse ... t401.shtml

NEW YORK, JUNE 28, 2005 — The Supreme Court's decision in Brand X to permit cable companies to discriminate in providing Internet access is a potentially devastating blow to the wide diversity of viewpoints and voices upon which our democracy and culture depend. Despite its underwhelming name, today's Supreme Court decision is overwhelmingly significant. It is nothing less than the opening shot in what promises to be an ongoing war over whether the future Internet will be "open" or "closed." Will Americans enjoy the freedom to visit any website, as they do today, or will they be restricted to visiting sites approved by - or in business with - the cable, telephone, or media conglomerate "gatekeeper" that provides broadband access to the Internet?

Extreme media consolidation and concentration have eliminated many independent voices and visions from much of America's media. Many creative artists fervently hoped that high speed broadband would empower them to share their creative visions directly with their audience over the Internet, eliminating the Big Media gatekeeper/distributor. Today's Supreme Court Brand X decision may have dashed those hopes. Here's why. Cable broadband providers will have the power to discriminate as to which websites their customers visit. They can demand payment from content creators for access to their broadband customers. They will have the power to divert their customers to sites they own and operate, or that pay them "carriage." Or they can simply block customers from accessing programming that competes with websites or TV networks that they are in business with. And no doubt the FCC will soon extend this power to discriminate to telephone company DSL broadband services as well.

I haven't read about the decision anywhere else but if this is true, it seems like the Supreme Court will have struck another blow to our freedoms by allowing ISPs to censor and block our internet access for business interests.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:27 pm**

i hear we live in a neofascist state...

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:28 pm**

land of the free, home of the brave

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:30 pm**

that was a long time ago...

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:35 pm**

Grudge wrote:land of the free, home of the brave

Land of the Oppressed and Quivering masses.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:35 pm**

the clinton times

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:37 pm**

That's what happens when the Repulicans are in office.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:39 pm**

Found a CNN/Money story on it.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technol ... nd_ruling/

It sounds like the case was over allowing the lines to be accessed by other companies. This is what happened with BellSouth ages ago.
The goverment ruled that BellSouth had to allow other companies to use their lines, which is why there is competition in the phone market.

It seems they ruled the opposite in this case, basically saying that the ISP industry doesn't require the kind of competition that the phone market does.

The opinion in the first article I posted seems to be conjecture on how the ruling will affect internet access in the long-term. While it doesn't seem to be too far off-base (why wouldn't the cable companies limit access if they have a monopoly on the lines?), it is still conjecture as far as I can tell.

But it seems like a ridiculous ruling to me; a massive handout to the cable companies, which can have serious implications for the openness of the internet - especially if they make the same decision regarding DSL lines.

But can DSL lines be made non-competitive like that, since the lines themselves have already been opened to competitors? It seems that any company can still use the phone lines, and as long as they have the hardware, they can run an open ISP if they want to.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:28 pm**

*goes to Canada*

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:36 pm**

This can actually be a good thing in the long run. Forcing cable companies to open up their lines is good in the short run as it allows more carriers to reach the consumers. However, in the long run it stifles innovation as the competitors can just ride along on someone else's investment and not innovate the next generation of services. You are scarificing short term lower rates for long term better products and services.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:49 pm**

Transient wrote:*goes to Canada*

getting married?

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:50 pm**

Fender wrote:This can actually be a good thing in the long run. Forcing cable companies to open up their lines is good in the short run as it allows more carriers to reach the consumers. However, in the long run it stifles innovation as the competitors can just ride along on someone else's investment and not innovate the next generation of services. You are scarificing short term lower rates for long term better products and services.

That seems to run counter to your free market philosophy though. I thought more competition meant more innovation AND better prices for consumers?

You say competitors would be riding along on someone's investment, but we're talking about the ISP market here. Are you saying they would be better off if they had to build their own cable network across the country in order to become ISPs?
Maybe you mean they would be forced to innovate some other technology to replace the cable network. But I'm not sure that really follows, since these are people competing in the local ISP business - not in the infrastructure. The funds required to build an ISP are quite a bit different from the costs of building your own physical network. So I don't really think these are the people who would be building new networks just because the ISP option wasn't available to them.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:08 pm**

Actually it is more of a free market. No regulation = free market. Regulations that FORCE sharing = not free.

As an analogy, do you think they should force the TV satellite companies to share their satellites so other companies can piggyback on their multi-billion dollar investment?

edit: This is probably a bit of a grey area. It could also be argued that these sort of networks should be public like water/sewer lines because of the inefficiency of running two networks. Just offereing another point of view that I've seen argued quite convincingly. (but can't find any links for right now

)

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:22 pm**

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:
Transient wrote:*goes to Canada*
getting married?

:icon19:

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:44 pm**

Fender wrote:Actually it is more of a free market. No regulation = free market. Regulations that FORCE sharing = not free.

As an analogy, do you think they should force the TV satellite companies to share their satellites so other companies can piggyback on their multi-billion dollar investment?

edit: This is probably a bit of a grey area. It could also be argued that these sort of networks should be public like water/sewer lines because of the inefficiency of running two networks. Just offereing another point of view that I've seen argued quite convincingly. (but can't find any links for right now )

I see where you're coming from. That kinda makes sense, but I think I tend to follow the latter philosophy of making them public. Especially after seeing how much better the competition is in the phone market since it was regulated.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:51 pm**

Denz wrote:That's what happens when the Repulicans are in office.

Correct you are.

If anyone was to bother checking the economy of the US during Republican vs Democrat administrations in the last 50 years you'd notice a regular pattern:

While the Republicans are in office unemployment, the deficeit and general well being of the country are usually poor...then a Democrat begins cleaning up the mess....and then just as the mess is on the verge of being cleaned up with a "promise to continue improving things" a Republican gets elected and presses the "reset" button.....then repeat the cycle until your head spins.

I'm neither Liberal nor Republican (contrary to rep's assertions that you are either/or) but I'm somewhere in the middle. The "middle" part I'm talking about is for the government to be simply fucking reasonable about things. Whenever a "far left" or "far right" idiot gets in the chair my balls begin retracting.

However things are getting different. For the first time in a long time the religious nuts are in power (or can greatly influence those that are) and are brazenly attempt to "take it all".

The US is going in the shitter because the won't let their country progress beyond what it is (imperial annex of another country notwithstanding) because - when things are going well - they seem to wanna rock the boat....because there hasn't been a police shooting on tv the last 10 minutes and "playing it safe" is considered un-American these days.

But then again I'm blasted and there really is only one political policy in the US regardless of sitting administration party.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:52 pm**

1984 here we come.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:00 pm**

I'm personally my own man, and don't subscribe to any liberal or conservative "schools of thought." But I try to use the knowledge and intelligence I do possess to step outside myself and wrap my head around problems somewhat objectively to try to decide what would be best for everybody, and would be in the spirit of the founding of the country to begin with.

Having said that, the Democrats have some very serious problems, but I believe that for the last 20, maybe 30 years, they are completely dwarfed by the problems of the Republican party, which is by now too corrupt to even run a neighborhood association successfully.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:03 pm**

The funny thing about capitalism is that - ultimately turning into a monopoly if allowed - you don't really end up with more choice than you would with "the single supplier".

Take a look at the current vid card market. There used to be a shitload. Now it's mainly just ATI and nVidia...because they swallowed up or destroyed everyone else....where's the free market?

Lots of corporate merging going on with one single company owning most of it. So again...where's the free market ultimately?

This is good weed. I'm having a Kracus moment.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:11 pm**

R00k wrote:I haven't read about the decision anywhere else but if this is true, it seems like the Supreme Court will have struck another blow to our freedoms by allowing ISPs to censor and block our internet access for business interests.

No - what'll happen is: they'll still allow their customers access to all of it, only now they'll have to pay a premium rate to do so while people who are happy with ISP-approved content will pay less. Hence, you'll most likely end up paying more for what you're getting now for less.

It's a legalised scam, in a nutshell.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:12 pm**

GONNAFISTYA wrote:The funny thing about capitalism is that - ultimately turning into a monopoly if allowed - you don't really end up with more choice than you would with "the single supplier".

Take a look at the current vid card market. There used to be a shitload. Now it's mainly just ATI and nVidia...because they swallowed up or destroyed everyone else....where's the free market?

Lots of corporate merging going on with one single company owning most of it. So again...where's the free market ultimately?

This is good weed. I'm having a Kracus moment.

lol

Well I've always said that giant corporate mega-mergers were one of the most dangerous things to our country - economically and politically.

It destroys worker incentive to improve/advance, it monopolizes markets, it forces communities to accept companies on their own terms instead of the other way around, it influences important policy which directly and indirectly influences nearly everyone's lives, it removes individuality and personality from communities.

You know, when the country was founded, there were only special circumstances under which corporate charters could even be issued - kinda like eminent domain was a few days ago - like for a purpose that could benefit the community and required such an incorporated group to achieve the goal.

Now you can just go to the state with the lowest tax rate and have your own pretty easily if you've got plenty of money. You can have 20 front corporations, you can have offshore corporations, you can have charity corporations for tax purposes... Now they're just tools for people who are already rich to get richer and maintain control.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:42 am**

fuck the internet

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:48 am**

Seems really fucked up, but then again nobody owns the internet, so how can anyone regulate it

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:49 am**

Fender wrote:This can actually be a good thing in the long run. Forcing cable companies to open up their lines is good in the short run as it allows more carriers to reach the consumers. However, in the long run it stifles innovation as the competitors can just ride along on someone else's investment and not innovate the next generation of services. You are scarificing short term lower rates for long term better products and services.

You might find this interesting

http://www.opportunityiowa.org/

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:52 am**

We must convince our non-american brothers to set up more proxies, indeed

Quake3World

Supreme Court ruling on ISPs controlling internet access

Supreme Court ruling on ISPs controlling internet access

Re: Supreme Court ruling on ISPs controlling internet access