Hello,
from Media Matters [16.01.14]: "The Wall Street Journal applauded a
court decision invalidating the Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) net neutrality regulations, spinning the rules as hampering
innovation and benefitting only "the giants of Silicon Valley," despite
experts who warned of the damaging impact such a ruling might have on
the public's access to online content."
In case this passed you by here is a brief bit of background: "The idea
of "net neutrality" is also called "open internet" because it argues
that no government or company can regulate the flow of the Internet.
Advocates say that if left without regulation, large service providers
will give preferential treatment to larger companies that can pay more.
Meanwhile, smaller tech companies without deep, corporate pockets, will
not be able to compete for premium service." [Reuters, 1/14/14]
You betcha, look who is applauding the decision: "Net neutrality travels
under the guise of ordering Internet service providers like Verizon and
Comcast not to discriminate against content providers. In reality it's a
government attempt to dictate how these providers must manage their
Internet pipes and how much they can charge companies for using those
pipes… This makes no more economic sense than forcing a cable company to
charge one price no matter how many channels a consumer subscribes to,
or saying a retailer can't charge more for two dresses than for one. It
also means less innovation and slower broadband rollout because Internet
companies are less sure of their return on investment. [The Wall Street
Journal, 1/14/13]
And what will be the outcome? TIM WU: It leaves the Internet in
completely uncharted territory. There's never been a situation where
providers can block whatever they want. For example, it means AT&T can
block people from reaching T-Mobile's customer service site if it
wanted. They can do whatever they want. [The Washington Post, 1/14/14]
And that's not all: "The ruling] means that the major providers of
high-speed Internet access in the US, who have systematically divided
markets and tacitly agreed mostly not to compete with one another, can
treat high-speed Internet access like a cable TV service = they can be
gatekeepers, charge content providers (any business) for the privilege
of reaching us, the subscribers - and, of course, charge us. A lot. for
lousy service compared to, say, Stockholm or Seoul." [Reddit.com, 1/14/14]
A classic Orwellian pincer movement; while the NSA is Hoovering data;
the telecoms are building dams, toll booths and entrance ramps (and
exits) for information highways.
best
allan
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
