boycott-riaa.com - Article: 'Warped' vision threatens the Internet:

'Warped' vision threatens the Internet:

Posted by Jon Newton on October 14, 2003 at 1:43 PM (printer friendly)

The Internet as we know it is at risk, warned FCC commissioner Michael J. Copps during a speech to the New America Foundation, yesterday.

"Entrenched interests are positioning themselves to control the network's chokepoints and they are lobbying the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to aid and abet them." he said.

"The Internet was designed to prevent government or a corporation or anyone else from controlling it. But this original vision of the Internet may soon be lost. In its place a warped view that open networks should be replaced by closed networks and that accessibility can be superceded by a new power to discriminate is emerging."

Copps said the FCC's "ill-advised" Internet policy is only one piece of a tectonic shift across the whole range of FCC issues.

"From media to telecom to the Internet, we appear to be rushing toward breathtaking regulatory alterations," he said. "The Commission is permitting, even encouraging, competition to wither in the face of centralization. It is short changing its responsibility to protect the public interest."

Until now, he went on, "the big corporations that control Internet bottlenecks have been unable fully to capitalize on this power. But now we face scenarios wherein those with bottleneck control will be able to discriminate against both users and content providers that they don't have commercial relationships with, don't share the same politics with, or just don't want to offer access to for any reason at all. From the not so distant shadows of the past, old attitudes favoring industry consolidation and limited access are again seeking to reestablish themselves."

"At issue are upcoming decisions at the FCC that will determine how much control companies will have over Internet access and their ability to discriminate against users, data, websites, or technologies. In the dial-up world, current protections require these companies to treat everyone equally. This equal treatment has contributed to enormous growth and innovation on the Internet. These decisions come on the heels of the FCC eliminating related media concentration protections.

Referring to Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell's plans to hand America's print and electronic media over to Hollywood, "a federal court has stayed that decision, and Congress is now debating reversing it," he added. "In addition, on Monday, another federal court overturned aspects of the FCC's cable broadband policy."

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


LXI	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 1:59 PM What kind of planet is this. I mean people need to get a clue. It is called freedom of speech. Pretty soon you will have to ask permission to buy food at this rate.

compmore	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 2:01 PM I hate to be a pessimist but unless there's a mainstream public outcry they just may suceed.

gdZiemann	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 2:13 PM There IS a mainstream public outcry but the government refuses to acknowledge it.

woodhead	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 2:15 PM If and swhen this happens I will no longer use the internet, as I do know. And may not use it all.

purfus	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 2:19 PM Good to see someone in a position of authority understand the importance of the issues at hand. Although I bet he gets in a car accident or accidently falls off a bridge with a rock tied to his legs.

RyanS	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 3:03 PM Just can't leave well enough alone :shrug:

Emeraude	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 3:08 PM I will say "bye bye" to my internet too!

TheSherminator	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 3:09 PM gdziemann, you are right. What can we do? There's not a whole lot we can do without all of our freedoms. And since things like the Patriot Act waive the 4th amendment for things like.. your personal belief system.. well... One day my people will be free. Not in this god foresaken pile of corruption. It's only getting worse. No steps are being taken to prevent any of it. Politicians have always been corrupt, etc etc. It's just really bad right now. And it's getting a lot worse. Despite what some people say, it's not 'old news.' It's a new breed of control in this country The internet is increasingly our only way of keeping tabs on the government, since the media is no longer very reliable and is also getting worse. Sites with a vision like http://opengov.media.mit.edu/ will be lost.

MikeTwo	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 3:09 PM that's crazy... I can understand taking measures to protect private or classified material from reaching the net - it's in the companies best interest to educate people about how NOT to offer proprietary stuff online by accident. Ditto for gov't, because that's national security... but stopping Joe Blow from Company XYZuesless from researching something on Yahoo because the CEOs of both companies had a fight over a girl back in HS or something?.... come on people.... Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

rabidzealot	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 3:13 PM mmm i don't think we need to worry about these things too much. when the extremists out there catch wind of this, there'll be hell to pay also, do you think companies who rely on the internet for massive sales/advertising would allow this to happen??? nope. if they passed laws like this people would just find a way around them, or riot. and how many internets addicts are there out there? you think they won't do something drastic? how about the cable companies (comcast, etc etc) how about phone companies? most people are getting cell phones. without the need for dialup internet, why would most people have ground lines? how about communication between families and friends through different countries accross the world? think they'll just sit back and "relax?" how much more money will businesses spend on communications, without the internet??? it would hinder the operations of all kinds of businesses, and also the government. "tracking people down" i think I'm speaking soundly when I say I don't think the loss of the internet will happen. if you think that infringing on people's rights will keep the same amount of people online, you're wrong. most people are drawn to the internet because of anonymity or knowledge. the anonymous people will shy away from losing their cherished unknown status, and the people browsing for knowledge are usually smart and will realize what's going on, and then decide to not have anything to do with it. so either way, if you think p2p is a moving snowball, too big to be stopped, the internet itself is a rabid avalanche, cognitively seeking people who oppose it to crush over its enormous momentum and power

koemoejoe	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 3:29 PM most people are getting cell phones. without the need for dialup internet, why would most people have ground lines? good point reminds of some thing the riaa should have did after new tech whas interduced i wonder what stoped them fear plane and simple now we pay becose thay fear us....what a funking world we live in! i hope the riaa and it's goons live long enuff....i mean don't go broke befor we the childern of mother earth find a way to leagly tar thair bisness down hand by hand....... this war will not be over after the riaa has died it will be are children and maybe are childerns childern who will have to take over for us. becose we are not fighting the riaa we are fighting every one in power look at Rage Against The Machine - No Shelter you tell me what you hear post away hell i'm going to start a post just about this song on the bords let freedom ragin and RAGE live on thay tryed so many times to shut that man up it will neaver happin i will get you the lyrics on for the bord post but buy the CD used and send them 5 bunks to help found thair effort

bulkeraser	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 3:47 PM gdZiemann is right. We have to keep emailing our congresspeople til our voices are loud as the water as Niagra Falls...the only thing they should hear is our demands for reform!

napstersghost	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 4:02 PM Don't worry Mike, if the internet gets out of control Orrin Hatch will blow it up with his ray gun.

koemoejoe	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 4:50 PM funny stuff napstersghost

koemoejoe	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 5:05 PM what if thay have controle over the internet in any way why don't thay install aint virus software at those controle points and save every one a big head ack o well i guess it's just one more big money makeing bisness that is controling are rights

tasadar24	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 5:11 PM I'm surprised the FCC cares, with all tht the chairman is trying to do to control media.

wet1	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 5:22 PM This has been happening all along. We have for years been under assault from those who wish to control what you can or can not do and they also wish to make money at it in the process. The only thing in the way has been this little problem of freedom of the internet. So that the money can be racked in it is now under assault. The government itself is being bought and purchased out of existance for the common man, it was designed to protect and serve. The consititution is rapidly becoming an endangered idea as money flows to purchase what can not be legal otherwise. The for sale sign is up for America and the people will be the victims of the sale. Is it any wonder that the American people have such distaste for government in general and for the large corporations?

silencethepoet	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 5:37 PM "Every generation needs a new Revolution." ---Thomas Jefferson--- Things like the corperatizing of the internet, the DMCA, the patriot act, and many other anti-bill of rights laws being passed lately just prove the government has closed its ears to the people. Time and time again the government has pushed to hard, and the citizens pushed back. The L.A. Riots (4-26-92) are a prime example. But in each case, the pushing was limited to little areas of the country. Lately they have been pushing hard against the entire population of the United States though, under the guise of 'Patriotism'. Take away enough freedom, and people will riot. There will be war. I honestly beleive the United States is heading for another Civil War. And i for one will not take the side of the government. What we have today is not the original vision of the government that our founding fathers envisioned. You can read their words and see that todays government is a perversion of their thoughts and hopes. Thomas Jefferson himself said of our government: "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Think on that. "I wanna live in Japan. At least there they don't have any pretense about having supposed freedoms." ---Silence the Poet---

zachary1	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 5:41 PM Michael Powell. That's all you need to know!

OldSchoolHipHop	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 6:00 PM thats it im going to become a politician, and try to save the little freedom we have left

StephenHinkle	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 6:01 PM I think we need to tell ISPs to NOT drop peering points, that is the key. Next, we should contact congress and ask for laws on media ownership. I think that publishing, newspapers, magazines, TV, Radio, Movies, Music, and the like should all have to be owned by different people, and these limits instituted: Each Entity may own only ONE type of media besides their own web site, and the following limits: Radio: A maximum of 2 radio stations per market, playing a different format, and to enter any other markets, they must be 600 miles apart, and a maximum of 8 stations in the US. TV: An owner may own the following: 1) Maximum of One local station in a given market, plus one local cable channel. Entering other markets is allowed, as long as they are 600 miles or more apart, and that one owner can enter a maximum of three markets. OR 2) One Regional or National TV Network, plus one National Cable Channel, and one premium or pay-per-view channel. OR 3) Three Cable Channels (Basic or Premium) per owner, one national and two local, and must appeal to different interests, and air different types of programming. Newspapers: You can have ONE Newspaper per city per market and a maximum of two markets, 600 miles or more apart. Magazines: A Maximum of two magazines per owner nationally or regionally. They MUST be about different topics. Publishing: Only ONE Publishing company or trademark name per owner, and the books from one publisher cannot dominate more than 0.5% of the market share. Movies: Only ONE movie studio per owner. No more than 4% of the market dominace per single movie studio. Other Restrictions: When airing news programming, require all sides be represented, regardless if the owners are liberal or conservative.

StephenHinkle	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 6:03 PM Music: ONE Record Label per owner, and each label could have a maximum of 2% market share.

silencethepoet	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 6:16 PM You cannot control who has more or less market share. if one company makes better decisions than another about picking which books to publich, they are obviously going to have more market share. limiting it would stifle creativity, which goes against everything we are fighting for. What we need is not deconsolidation, but a paradigm shift towards innovation through a changing of copyright laws, back to or close to their original roots.

MerylStryfe	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 6:18 PM Michael Powell is just plain evil. Just fire him as FCC chairman and clear the board. Maybe it's time that the president isn't allowed to appoint who goes on the FCC advisory board, and instead have some independent board to start appointing members. Eh, just a thought.

Justin42980	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 6:33 PM If the internet becomes too restrictive i will do without it or buy a low cost connection through netzero for basic functions, otherwise if I don't have the same freedoms that we have now I will just do without the net because i'm sick and tired of being bullied around by the government and large corporations!!

purfus	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 6:56 PM Yes marketshare is hard to regulate and would probably not last. However, regional dominance is not hard and should be implemented. Think of how cheap and good movies would be if one of the big 7 was fighting with hundreds of other firms for popularity.

twlnki	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 7:05 PM This whole thing MAKES ME SICK. I'm VERY tempted to sell my computer, sell my TV, and sell my radio and move to AUSTRALIA and buy land to start a farm on. I'm so tired of my freedom of using the internet and TV being threatened. I don't have much money, and so do a lot of other people. We can't do much, but at least there ARE people in high places looking out for us. But even those people in high places can't do sh*t against the CORPORATIONS. Fcuk this. Australia, here I come.

twlnki	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 7:09 PM BTW: Does anyone know if the ACLU has gotten their hands in this at all? All these articles haven't mentioned it at all. Plus I went to the ACLU website and under their issues, I couldn't find anything for the internet or file-sharing, maybe I just didn't look hard enough? bratti420 at hotmail dot com

FewInhibitions	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 7:11 PM Hmm, controling free markets? Controlling market share? Impossible and goes against everything this site is about. Limiting ownership of media is good - but only to a point that keeps it multi-directional and non-monopolized. Anything that limits or controls creativity should be killed at once!

indieWarriors	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 7:44 PM Welcome to the bastardization of America. Its hysterical that the media will criticize other countries' policies as rigidly corrupt and fascist and backward but hypocritically want my OUR country to de-evolve to fascism and still ask us to be patriotic to our FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. I love my fellow American citizens but I hate our politicians and I would spit on every one of their faces if I had the chance. Im not kidding.

wethepeople	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 7:56 PM Its another part of the New World Order as far as I'm concerned and is evil to the core. I am expecting them to spring the mark of the beast on everyone sometime in the relatively near future. When the world goes cashless we are in deep deep doodoo. I will smash my computer if they try to limit what I do on the net. Them vultures.

wethepeople	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 8:02 PM The freedoms that we have are systematically being gradually eroded. We cannot be free if our government does not work for the people. From what I have seen, both parties are pursuing things that the majority of Americans are against. Where is the freedom in that?

TheSherminator	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 10:32 PM komoejoe, I want a ground line because if I use my cell phone for internet, then my cell phone becomes, by default, a marketing outlet. My phone already says "Sprint" right on the front, as if I wouldn't be able to remember on my own. And if I have an internet enabled phone, then I'll be getting spammed with ads on it. I refuse to let my own telephone be polluted with marketing. I refuse to let these SOB's any more into my life. I'd rather die than spend 50% or more of my life responding to someone's "ideas" of what I want to buy so I can give THEM my money. I see enough of it on every other outlet to which marketing has a means to reach. No internet on my cel phone, ever.

MadMax2003	Date: October 14, 2003 @ 11:02 PM There's no question that government and Big Business, specifically large National/International Corporations are colluding to control you the electorate and more importantly to Corporations, you the consumer. Business has the money and government has the legislative power, unfortunately business is able to buy legislation which favors their interest. You can try to impact Business through Boycotting, but unless you can bring the majority of consumers onside, your chances of success are quite slim. The most vulnerable part of this unholy alliance is the politician, turn your focus there, for the monies put forth by the Corporations are only effective if the politician can get elected. If the politicians actions are unfriendly or unfavorable to the electorate, become politically active and aggressively and conscientiously work for their defeat. They will only seek to represent your interest, if you demonstrate clearly, that to do otherwise, will mean their political oblivion. Use the greatest power that you are given as part of a Democracy, you individual vote to insist that you interest are the first protected. Get organized, get active, and VOTE.

Litheon	Date: October 15, 2003 @ 1:42 AM Man cyberspace is relatively the only place left where you don't have to worry about the corporate asswipes controlling your life and now their poised to clench that down too. I'm thinking of gathering a covert-ops team. This article soooo makes me want to plant a .454 between the eyes of every CEO of every corporation that is buying laws and influencing regulatory organizations to get their way. Violence is not the answer you say? You should boycott? Well when you're talking about a company say like Sony, or Microsoft there are so many other avenues where they get money from. You would have to give it all up except living essentials to boycott some companies completely. Further more there are other companies, which you would probably have to buy from anyway if you managed a total boycott, that depend on the products provided by the boycotted companies to operate. Walmart, Winn-Dixie, Publix and Eckerd just to name a few. They can't very well boycott and remain in business. Voting politicians out of office only forces the industries to pay a different guy than before. Trying to block bad laws from being passed or get new laws passed that block the current bad ones only forces the industries to buy more bad ones. The head of the snake needs to be cut off the very people that lobby for the death of our freedoms and the promotion of their own. They will always feel powerful and safe and will never think twice about doing something to crush us unless a real fight, a fight for their lives much like we are fighting for ours, is literally rammed in their faces. They need to realize once and for all that they are mortal and have no right to dictate how the rest of us live just because they have more money than we do. Had I the resources for such a task I wouldn't be wasting time typing this.

RIAAposterchild	Date: October 15, 2003 @ 4:31 AM StephenHinkle wrote: "Next, we should contact congress and ask for laws on media ownership. I think that publishing, newspapers, magazines, TV, Radio, Movies, Music, and the like should all have to be owned by different people, and these limits instituted:" Those limits would blow all the current media giants right out of the water... http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners thanks to paulruss for providing us with the link. ;-)

goldenpi	Date: October 15, 2003 @ 5:57 AM The article was correct. As the internet becomes a more important part of the economy, and its upkeep costs rise, more and more areas are placed under corporate control, instead of the traditional government or academic control. Corporations are infamous for their lack of ethics, and without strong regulation they will use their new power to dishonestly cheat their way to profit. The US government in particular is well known for avoiding regulation whenever possible. The view appears to be that if a free market is left as unregulated as possible it will somehow form into a suitable economy. The increaseing power and influence (ie power without responsibility) of corporations is very worrying. They have no goals beyond makeing profit. The FCC does seem to be lessening regulation in the media industry constantly. If this continues, the Big Five will become the Big Four, then the Big Three. Sooner or later just two or three corporations will be controling all news, radio, movies and music.

JC123	Date: October 15, 2003 @ 7:53 AM Yah know... If Arnold can get elected as mayor of the most bankrupt state in the US right now, then we can change the copyright laws eventually. I believe the pendulum is beginning to shift towards the left. How far it goes just depends on us...

Jazzmary2U	Date: October 15, 2003 @ 11:44 AM Actually, folks, freedom of speech is a razor-thin right that is constantly challenged and poked in many ways.. from greedy "corporations" to "terrorism" to "religion" to even "protecting the citizens from... " If we do not stand guard and struggle constantly, that freedom will disappear like the ring of smoke from the pirates pipe..

Jazzmary2U	Date: October 15, 2003 @ 11:47 AM Great site link, Sherminator, BTW.. I would forward that to all my friends. :thumbsup: