[jjacob]

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/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!"

Three words: Money-grubbing bastards

[artwking4]

Hahahaha! Well, that'll happen.

So what's next? Charge me money every time I change the channel on my TV, or an additional charge for changing channels during commercial breaks? Are Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo going to start charging console owners to play games by the half hour? How about 50 cents for every savegame? Will I have to pay a toll to leave my driveway?

[Stoofa]

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!"

I don't think he understands how the internet works*. People pay AT&T (or their cable or telephone provider) a monthly fee to connect to the internet so they can sites like Google and Yahoo. If sites like Google and Yahoo didn't exist, a lot of people wouldn't pay their telephone companies to access the internet.

*Actually I bet he understands it damn well and is putting this spin on it to confuse others into agreeing with his money grabbing ideas.

[Jolaes]

Honestly, I don't really care what happens in the States because ppl there could pay 10x more for their net access without batting an eye and fear that they won't make ends meet. The other question, however, is more of interest for everyone.
The idea to get (more) control over the net is not new and in fact, it CAN work. Think of the Chinese Internet Police with its 35,000 net experts constanly filtering the web and monitoring virtually everyone behind computers in China. Eventually, when terror threat in the States will rise (running out of oil, new wars with the Russians will start for the remaining oil fields and so on) the average NA net users' access will be seriously throttled down for security and strategical reasons.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by artwking4

Hahahaha! Well, that'll happen.

So what's next? Charge me money every time I change the channel on my TV, or an additional charge for changing channels during commercial breaks? Are Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo going to start charging console owners to play games by the half hour? How about 50 cents for every savegame? Will I have to pay a toll to leave my driveway?

Well, more immediately, you'll find that for example your personal internet communication will be put on low-priority while content such as advertiment will be put on high-priority. If they (Bell etc.) succeed in their 'world domination' scheme, they will be selling packages to big corporations which will give the clients' internet traffic priority over say, peer-to-peer communications. By means of "deep packet inspection" it'll be very easy for them to see what kind of packets you will be sending or receiving (e-mail, surfing etc.) and then basically assign a low-priority to your usage (ofcourse advertisers that buy their "Platinum" package will be able to bring ads to your PC faster than you can say "Huh?").

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will have no choice but to go along in this (though it's not like they don't want this to happen) and use this to their advantage. It's not likely you'll have to pay for playing their games by the hour, but it is likely you'll generally have to pay for online gaming (as MS, Sony and Nintendo will have to pay for it if they want their online services to have priority over other internet traffic, and they 'love' passing costs down to consumers).

It may sound like something that'll never get approval, but don't underestimate how much infuence corporations like Bell and Verizon wield in Washington and over the FCC. Already the FCC is 'selling out' bit by bit, so don't expect them to come to your rescue.

Originally Posted by Stoofa

I don't think he understands how the internet works*. People pay AT&T (or their cable or telephone provider) a monthly fee to connect to the internet so they can sites like Google and Yahoo. If sites like Google and Yahoo didn't exist, a lot of people wouldn't pay their telephone companies to access the internet.

*Actually I bet he understands it damn well and is putting this spin on it to confuse others into agreeing with his money grabbing ideas.

Nevertheless it looks like Google and Yahoo will have to pay for their service. Unless they want to get put in the "low priority traffic" bin along with the rest of us losers I fear this is going to impact the entire world.

But such "neutrality" safeguards are inadequate to address more fundamental changes the Bells and cable monopolies are seeking in their quest to monetize the Internet. If we permit the Internet to become a medium designed primarily to serve the interests of marketing and personal consumption, rather than global civic-related communications, we will face the political consequences for decades to come. Unless we push back, the "brandwashing" of America will permeate not only our information infrastructure but global society and culture as well.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Jolaes

Honestly, I don't really care what happens in the States because ppl there could pay 10x more for their net access without batting an eye and fear that they won't make ends meet. The other question, however, is more of interest for everyone.

Yes, but you're forgetting the fact that other (global) companies might follow suit. Trust me, if there's money to be made, they're listening.

Originally Posted by Jolaes

The idea to get (more) control over the net is not new and in fact, it CAN work. Think of the Chinese Internet Police with its 35,000 net experts constanly filtering the web and monitoring virtually everyone behind computers in China. Eventually, when terror threat in the States will rise (running out of oil, new wars with the Russians will start for the remaining oil fields and so on) the average NA net users' access will be seriously throttled down for security and strategical reasons.

If there'd ever be a war between Russia and the US, I think I can guess what side of the fence Europe will be on (the side with the oil fields ). But that aside, you raise an important issue. I do think the US has way too much control over the internet. The fact the US controls nearly all the domain name servers is proposterous, and the control really should be more distributed amongst the globe.

ita in vita ut in lusu alae pessima iactura arte corrigenda est.

"In life as well as in the game the casting of the oars must be corrected by skill" or something like that. Am I close? My latin is a bit rusty

[Jazhara7]

If that really happens I am afraid I'd have to go Postal on certain persons responsible for that.


They're not only nuts, they're also greedy!! I'll not have Big Brother watching me, and charge me money for it too. I'll just not accept it!



-

[Jolaes]

Jacob,

my motto comes from Falkner's book (no, not the American writer; it's J. Meade Falkner, the British clergyman/writer) entitled "Moonfleet". It's a romantic (but not sappy) Victorian adventure with smugglers, cursed treasure lost&found, "alone in the dark in a vault" horror; you name it... . I like it more than "Treasure Island" or "Kidnapped".
Naturally, it is also a citation in the book. It is written on an old backgammon board which belongs to an old inn in Dorset called "Why Not?". It roughly translates to "In life, as in a game of hazard, (even) the worst throw can be corrected by skill". Quite optimistic

Jaz,

Please tell me what the nuclear weasels are. I don't have time right now to browse thru older threads and am really curious.

[Jazhara7]

Originally Posted by Jolaes

Jaz,

Please tell me what the nuclear weasels are. I don't have time right now to browse thru older threads and am really curious.

It's from "The Geek Test"-Thread (page 2). Tabacco said "Nuclear Wessels!" which I read as "Nuclear Weasels!" - The original quote is from the Star Trek movie where Chekov and Ohura are on Earth, and searching for Nuclear Vessels. Chekov, being the Russian (Not saying that every Russian person has an accent, but Chekov does.)member of the Enterprise crew, has an accent that makes it sound like "Nuclear Wessels/Nuclear Weasels". I really have to see that movie again in English.



-

[saucyminx]

That is one of the most disturbing things I've read recently...

[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by Mira

That is one of the most disturbing things I've read recently...

What? The weasels or the Internet thing?

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Jazhara7

If that really happens I am afraid I'd have to go Postal on certain persons responsible for that. They're not only nuts, they're also greedy!! I'll not have Big Brother watching me, and charge me money for it too. I'll just not accept it!

-

I'm with you all the way, now if only we get a few more people to join us we can actually pull this off (going postal on the persons responsible that it). Also, wouldn't that mail-order assasin come in handy? What does he charge, and do we get discounts for large orders?

Originally Posted by Jolaes

Jacob,

my motto comes from Falkner's book (no, not the American writer; it's J. Meade Falkner, the British clergyman/writer) entitled "Moonfleet". It's a romantic (but not sappy) Victorian adventure with smugglers, cursed treasure lost&found, "alone in the dark in a vault" horror; you name it... . I like it more than "Treasure Island" or "Kidnapped".
Naturally, it is also a citation in the book. It is written on an old backgammon board which belongs to an old inn in Dorset called "Why Not?". It roughly translates to "In life, as in a game of hazard, (even) the worst throw can be corrected by skill". Quite optimistic

Oh well I was pretty close (considering it's Latin ), with ala, iactura and arte having so many meanings Seems like an awesome book, I should get that, sounds like it's perfect reading for an adventure gamer!

"Nuclear Wessels" I should really see some of the original ST movies, only seen Wrath of Khan so far.

[RLacey]

I must be the only Star Trek fan in the world who thinks that The Voyage Home is one of the worse films ...

Rather than going postal, could we not just tell Jack Thompson that, by charging money for access in this way, the companies are profiting from sales of porn and downloadable murder simulators games?

Still, let's go and shoot them up some when the time comes .

[Jolaes]

Jaz,

Thanks for the promptness. I am not a true Trekker but seen a few episodes. You might want to check out this if you have not heard it before
(I laughed my head off on the 1st encounter):

http://loogoos.hu/php/download.php?view.595
click on the floppy icon.

Jacob,

special interest point in Moonfleet: part of the story takes place in the Netherlands... In fact, all the crucial turning points...

Sergeant Robert,

I have stocked up an extra AG Elite beret for you, too.

[Jazhara7]

[QUOTE=jjacob]I'm with you all the way, now if only we get a few more people to join us we can actually pull this off (going postal on the persons responsible that it). Also, wouldn't that mail-order assasin come in handy? What does he charge, and do we get discounts for large orders? QUOTE]


I am of the opinion that there is nothing you can't solve by use of the Mail-Order Assassin. Or by the use of fire (you can even use it to clean!). I think I might be able to get a good deal from him, because I did so much to promote his services. Seriously, he owes me. And I can still bait him with some salve for the rash from the 'Tainted' Ink (see Ragnar's blog for details).


-

[RLacey]

Now, here's a question. If Jaz is, according to her signature, the "Inventor of the Mail order-Assassin" [emphasis mine], then can't she just produce another one for this spacific task? Or simply point out that he wouldn't even exist without her?

OK, that was two questions. And two uninteresting ones at that. But you get my point. Possibly.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Jolaes

Honestly, I don't really care what happens in the States because ppl there could pay 10x more for their net access without batting an eye and fear that they won't make ends meet. The other question, however, is more of interest for everyone.

Actually, I know quite a few Americans who can't even pay what the internet costs *now* without fearing about making ends meet. Please don't tell me you subscribe to the bullshit that all Americans are rich. (Are we poor, in general? No, not compared to Third World countries and such. But rich? Gee, I *wish* I was rich...)

Anyhoo. Maybe I just have too much faith in the intelligence of Americans, but if this sort of thing passes, I see one or more of several things happening:

1. Somebody finds a way to hack around it. I mean seriously, considering all the ad-blocking programs in usage and being clamored for nowadays, they think they can successfully cram more ads down everyone's throat? Gimme a break.

2. People migrate from ISP companies pulling this sort of crap to ISP companies that aren't. (Anyone remember what happened when unlimited access first started competing with pay-per-hour?)

3. If every ISP company is doing it, people start using the Internet a lot less. Companies that rely on lots of Internet usage start hurting. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

4. I can imagine companies, especially small ones, that have to make heavy usage of Internet access saying, "You must be f***ing kidding." Well, we all know that the big corporations have been itching to kill off small business anyway, what's one more nail in the coffin?</sarcasm>

All in all, just another example of how American businesses always focus so strongly on short-term gains that they fail to see they're screwing themselves over the long term.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Actually, I know quite a few Americans who can't even pay what the internet costs *now* without fearing about making ends meet. Please don't tell me you subscribe to the bullshit that all Americans are rich. (Are we poor, in general? No, not compared to Third World countries and such. But rich? Gee, I *wish* I was rich...)

All british people seem to be rich though, hell even our beggars have mobile phones

[playing_games]

Originally Posted by Stoofa

I don't think he understands how the internet works*. People pay AT&T (or their cable or telephone provider) a monthly fee to connect to the internet so they can sites like Google and Yahoo. If sites like Google and Yahoo didn't exist, a lot of people wouldn't pay their telephone companies to access the internet.

*Actually I bet he understands it damn well and is putting this spin on it to confuse others into agreeing with his money grabbing ideas.

Not really. In the States, companies like AT&T and MCI provides the much of the Internet backbone these days. Without the network that they deployed using their own funds, a huge portion of the Internet traffic wouldn't be able to flow. Your ISP connects to the backbone and in turn connects you to that backbone through their ISP service. Without that network, your ISP wouldn't be able to connect you to the Internet and you would not be able to access sites like Google and Yahoo. A portion of the ISP service fee you pay goes to what they have to pay to the backbone providers. The content providers like Google and Yahoo of course gets the benefit of the Internet connectivity but doesn't not directly compensate anyone for that benefit.

[stuboy]

Their evil plan is seriously flawed. Unless they are operating a cartel (which is illegal), one of the companies will continue to sell "proper" net acccess, and will become vastly more popular than their restricted competitors. Market forces.