Dark Days For The Internet

[Maximius]

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=d...MQIwG&b=1539607

 

 

Here is an article about the COPE bill, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enchancement act. It will essentially give the telecoms unprecedented control over the WWW, as well as removing federal oversight of their use and distribution of online resources. Its rumored over here that this is a payoff to the telecomms for their handing over the phone and email records of 10s of millions of U.S. citizens to the federal pigs a month ago or so.

 

COPE isnt the end of Net Neutrality but its the beginning of the end. Net neutrality is the idea that as long as you have an ISP, you should be able to go pretty much anywhere you like on the net and read whatever you like, download whatever you like. Of course, there have to be some restrictions, I dont want plans for nuclear bombs posted all over, but under this new paradigm for example my ISP, Verizon, could block my access to sites that are critical of Verizon, or block access to anti-war sites, or pro-labor sites, or whatever.

It will furthermore limit the ability for private citizens to access public access television, a small but important form of media where small voices get a big platform to make themselves heard.

[sparhawk]

IMO this is mostly a trcik to get more money for the same services, by calling it "premium" as if it were something special. In the end it will boil down to flatrates again, but at a higher price then now.

[Dram]

That's pretty fucked....I wonder when they'll do this here...

[Ishtvan]

...under this new paradigm for example my ISP, Verizon, could block my access to sites that are critical of Verizon, or block access to anti-war sites, or pro-labor sites, or whatever.

 

Perhaps they could mess with interconnection and access to censor things like you say, but in the immortal words of the Miami Vice trailer, ain't nobody gonna make no money doing that. What they really want to get rid of is the non-discrimination aspect of net neutrality. They want the ability to treat different packets differently so that people have to pay for prioritizing their traffic. Currently all packets on the network must get the same priority, so Billy's MySpace page must load just as quickly as some major corporate page.

 

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it would suck to get a slow-ass connection everywhere because I couldn't afford to pay for priority. Privatizing the flow of information just rubs me the wrong way. On the other hand, telcos own their section of the networks, and spend millions investing in them, so it should be up to them what they do with their private property.

 

If the gov't decrees that what telcos provide is a public good and rule out tiered service as an option, they should provide tax money from the public to telcos (like they've done in the past). As is, they are kind've getting screwed. As an analogy, imagine you invested your life savings in building and running a bar, and then the gov't comes in and tells you that all drinks at your bar must be sold at the same price; you can't mix someone a better drink because they pay more.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

As for not being able to access data that the telco blocks, there's always freeweb. As per everything else, and the internet doomsday prophesized, I'm willing to live see what happens of it.

Edit: sorry, I meant freenet.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat

[sparhawk]

As per everything else, and the internet doomsday prophesized, I'm willing to live see what happens of it.

 

You don't really have a choice, right? And once it is installed, it will not go away anymore.

[sparhawk]

On the other hand, telcos own their section of the networks, and spend millions investing in them, so it should be up to them what they do with their private property.

 

You mean they pay millions just to maintain some old poles, and broken cables? Somehow I don't think that your telcos are so much different from our power network companies, and they also spend millions per year, just not on properly maintaining their network. Instead the living costs increase because the director needs to have this new Porsche.

[Maximius]

Ishtvan: "I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it would suck to get a slow-ass connection everywhere because I couldn't afford to pay for priority. Privatizing the flow of information just rubs me the wrong way. On the other hand, telcos own their section of the networks, and spend millions investing in them, so it should be up to them what they do with their private property. "

 

They have millions to spend on such things for one, and where those millions came from in the first place is a discussion in and of itself. How much of that $$ are public funds that the telcos have managed to work loose into their pockets? How much of it is from squeezing customers for a service few can live without today? Corporations dont come across that money in a pirates treasure chest, nor do they earn it all by righteous means.

 

As an example, look at the big Pharmas. They gouge customers for their products, spend billions on propagating lies about their practices, suck off of the public teat for research $$$ either by co-opting university departments or lobbying Congress for tax write offs. And they still cannot make five new pills without three being withdrawn for being a health hazard.

 

But even assuming that all those hundreds of millions are "theirs" without qualification, you have to question an arrangement under which something as important as the Web/Net is largely owned by private hands. Its ultimately a question of human rights. Should something as valuable and useful as the Web/Net be controlled by a few hands or should it be a public utility available to all? If a handful of corporations can carry out such investment for their own profit, surely a way could be devised to do it for the benefit of all.

 

Ishtvan:"If the gov't decrees that what telcos provide is a public good and rule out tiered service as an option, they should provide tax money from the public to telcos (like they've done in the past). As is, they are kind've getting screwed. As an analogy, imagine you invested your life savings in building and running a bar, and then the gov't comes in and tells you that all drinks at your bar must be sold at the same price; you can't mix someone a better drink because they pay more."

 

Im sorry, but that analogy does not apply here. The telcos are not some Mom and Pop enterprise, they are GI-NORMOUS multinational corporations who use their clout to push around people, including governments in some intances. Their "life savings" are the profits they have squeezed out of their markets and its hardly a two way street. They lobby for favorable laws, for access to public funds, and to squash attempts to check their power. They are hardly victims in this process, they are the perpetrators.

[Ishtvan]

Im sorry, but that analogy does not apply here. The telcos are not some Mom and Pop enterprise, they are GI-NORMOUS multinational corporations who use their clout to push around people, including governments in some intances. Their "life savings" are the profits they have squeezed out of their markets and its hardly a two way street. They lobby for favorable laws, for access to public funds, and to squash attempts to check their power. They are hardly victims in this process, they are the perpetrators.

 

Unfortunately we don't get to decide who the rule of law applies to. The precedent set for larger companies can be applied to small companies too. While it's easy to put a sinister face on large corporations, and I'd like to punch CEOs in the face as much as the next guy, the majority of jobs are filled by regular people like you and me. At what point does a corporation grow large enough to decide it's okay to collectively screw over all the participants?

 

The victims of the process are the thousands of working people losing their jobs because the gov't is limiting how telcos can profit from their own private property, in an industry that's already been in the toilet for years.

 

But even assuming that all those hundreds of millions are "theirs" without qualification, you have to question an arrangement under which something as important as the Web/Net is largely owned by private hands. Its ultimately a question of human rights. Should something as valuable and useful as the Web/Net be controlled by a few hands or should it be a public utility available to all? If a handful of corporations can carry out such investment for their own profit, surely a way could be devised to do it for the benefit of all.

Again if we declare it a public good and subsidize it from tax money as we have in the past, that's fine and they can regulate it however they want, but you can't have it both ways.

[Maximius]

ishtvan:

Unfortunately we don't get to decide who the rule of law applies to. The precedent set for larger companies can be applied to small companies too. While it's easy to put a sinister face on large corporations, and I'd like to punch CEOs in the face as much as the next guy, the majority of jobs are filled by regular people like you and me. At what point does a corporation grow large enough to decide it's okay to collectively screw over all the participants?

 

But we can rest assured that the rule of law is applied differently to incredibly powerful and wealthy entities such as multis. In many instances, they MAKE the law, especially here in the U.S. where the relations between gov. and the private sector are more than cozy. Its true that the majority of jobs belong to folks like us but attacking the corporation isnt attacking them, they are merely wage slaves being exploited along with us. They are constantly collectively screwing over their workers. In fact, you could make the argument that the corporation and its workers are two completely different groups whoses only common bond is that one parasitizes off of the other. And Im not merely applying a scary mask to the multis, I can show you a long list of books, articles, and newspieces to demonstrate that they really are monsters.

 

ishtvan:The victims of the process are the thousands of working people losing their jobs because the gov't is limiting how telcos can profit from their own private property, in an industry that's already been in the toilet for years.

 

Or are they losing their jobs because the CEO and his cronies are trying to squeeze more coin out of their companies? Trying to make more profit with less staff, dropping workforces that demand fair wages or threaten to unionize? What determines if a company like Verizon is in the toilet? If its shareholders arent making even more unearned profit from the beast? Here in Philly Ive seen this firsthand. When I had my cable internet installed a few years back I had a chance to chat with the tech. I asked him why it took so long to get my house set up, why I had such problems with getting my I-Net set up, why the techs took forever to get to me. He replied that when the telecom deregulation hit, most of his colleagues had been laid off and that the few techs left had a workload 5 times what it used to be. He said he is lucky if he can get all of his appointments done before a new batch lands on his desk.

 

Ive seen this also in the museums Ive worked at as a educator, when the $$$ people start to take over positions once held by educators, scientists, artist, etc the first thing they do is look for ways to dump workers, squeeze more out of the few left, and generally trim spending to redirect it towards the bottom line. Without regards for the goals of the institution, education, anything but the nickels and dimes. This is what they went to school for, this is what MBAs are trained to do above all else. When I worked at the Franklin Institute we had one meeting where the VP of finance applauded us for raking in a 1.5 million dollar profit for a non-profit institution. After the applause died off, she told us that each department was getting a 6% budget decrease the next fiscal year. And that they wanted to replace the highly trained floor guide staff with talking boxes you wear around your neck and cartoon video monitors to tell you what the exhibits were about. And would anyone mind signing up to volunteer to cover the floor on the weekends because they had laid off some floor staff already. I remember looking at my co-workers in amazement and asking them if they were hearing what I was. 1.5 Million ABOVE BUDGET and we were facing cuts in people and resources. Now whenever I apply for a teaching job and I see that the majority of higher staff are MBAs or business backgrounds, I withdraw my application because I already know the atmosphere will be poisoned

 

ishtvan:if we declare it a public good and subsidize it from tax money as we have in the past, that's fine and they can regulate it however they want, but you can't have it both ways.

 

 

What if we seize the utilities, declare them public property, and tell the profiteers to go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut? Will there be problems? you bet, lots of em, but at least the bloodsuckers would be out of the picture. It wont happen here in the heart of the Empire anytime soon but its happening in many places in South America. One of the biggest problems is convincing people that it can be done differently, there ARE alternatives despite what M. Thatcher, the Wall Street Journal, and Lou Dobbs would have us think.

[OrbWeaver]

Or are they losing their jobs because the CEO and his cronies are trying to squeeze more coin out of their companies? Trying to make more profit with less staff, dropping workforces that demand fair wages or threaten to unionize? What determines if a company like Verizon is in the toilet? If its shareholders arent making even more unearned profit from the beast?

 

That just about covers it. In my company we are constantly told about minimising costs etc, or that they don't have enough budget to give inflation-linked raises to anyone outside of the small group of top performers, but the CEO still manages to take home millions in bonuses.

 

When I had my cable internet installed a few years back I had a chance to chat with the tech. I asked him why it took so long to get my house set up, why I had such problems with getting my I-Net set up, why the techs took forever to get to me. He replied that when the telecom deregulation hit, most of his colleagues had been laid off and that the few techs left had a workload 5 times what it used to be. He said he is lucky if he can get all of his appointments done before a new batch lands on his desk.

 

The exact same thing happened when we were outsourced from the public sector to a private organisation - half the support team were transferred to doing worthless process crap which helps nobody, while the rest of the team ended up with twice the work and a quarter of the time in which to do it (new SLAs as part of the contract). Guess whose fault it was when the targets weren't met?

[Maximius]

That just about covers it. In my company we are constantly told about minimising costs etc, or that they don't have enough budget to give inflation-linked raises to anyone outside of the small group of top performers, but the CEO still manages to take home millions in bonuses.

 

 

Another Franklin Institute story: The President of the Insitute, a worthless pile of shit with a ++doctorate++ in public parks management (dont ask me how the fuck you earn a PhD in such a field) held a meeting where they were explaining why we had to cut back on spending here and there. A few weeks after this meeting we found out through the grape vine that he was earning 400K$ a year PLUS getting an SUV paid for by the institute. I and my colleagues, as travelling science educators, were in danger of losing our company cars because the deal with Subaru was collapsing and they were actually ASKING US TO USE OUR OWN CARS TO DRIVE FOR THE MUSEUM WHILE THE FUCKING CEO HAD A TRUCK PAID FOR AND STILL EARNED SIX FIGURES! ( Am I shouting?)

 

Another telling sign: The premier public science museum in the U.S. has as of last year THREE individuals with degrees in related fields. One geologist who was the acting astronomer, one PhD in education on the Board of directors, and one research scientist who did statistical work for the museum. EVERYONE ELSE IN POWER HAD AN MBA, a MARKETING, PR, OR AD degree, every single one. My department was at one time the premier travelling science education program in the world, we had offers coming to go overseas and do our thing, we each earned the musem about 100k a year for a total of 500K a year from six individuals. Children LOVED us, teachers wrote letters about us that glowed in the dark with love, parents fought over who would get to go up on stage with us as their schools. We've had NASA try to steal us away for their science program, scientists tell us our shows were the best lay explanation of the phenomena they had ever heard, one teacher from a school in NYC wrote me that my show made her learning disabled 4th grade class LOVE science and throw themselves into its study with new heart.

 

Last I heard, the Board of Directors was planning on replacing the highly trained (used to be 6 months for ONE show) staff with professional actors who would learn all the shows in about 6 months, who needed no science or education background, who would only get up and puppet the shows. My old buddy was training some of the new staff, he said it was both hilarious to see professional actors fucking up the science and heartbreaking to see a program he had help to build turning into dust.

 

 

Ok, enough ranting, deep breaths, think pleasant thoughts, yes, thats better........

[sparhawk]

Apart from the additional fees that will come, I don't really think that much will change. We already have different speeds, so there is not much different there IMO. ISPs can already block traffic if they would want to.

[Hylix Ulyx]

[uplink established]

 

Of course, nothing will change.

 

There is nothing to fear.

 

 

Sleep, now.

 

 

Sleeeep.....

 

[end transmission]

[Hylix Ulyx]

Who just posted?

[Maximius]

The news program I was listening had a guest from the Alliance for Community Media on. He said in so many words that COPE isnt the end of the world but its a good beginning. If it passes through the Senate, which it probably will, it will be followed in a few months or so by another bill which will push the line further.

[sparhawk]

Of course they will push always further. They will do this as long until they hit a wall, where people start to seriously complain. That's why they are doing this in small steps, so the complaints always stays small.

[Dram]

lol....Hylix has been drinking again....

[Hylix Ulyx]

NO ONE CALLS ME THAT!!!!

 

 

[Dram]

lol! DRUNK!!!!

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

Yes, I have similar stories to share, but we're all familiar enough with them...

All I'm left to say is: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!