(AP) -- The Federal Communications Commission on Friday asked Verizon Wireless why it recently doubled the fees it charges customers when they break their contracts on "smart" phones.
details at link ...
(This is not my graphic. If someone can tell me the source, I will certainly link to give creator credit.)
[EDIT: Thanks to @640k for providing me the link to the article the above graphic came from. As it's from Gizmodo, I would've found it in my feed later tonight, but I'm glad to update now anyway: http://gizmodo.com/5391707/losing-net-neutrality-the-worst-case-scenario - looks like the original source is here: http://bit.ly/2CT0bm]
Just a great example to explain to people what losing the Net Neutrality fight is all about. In the same way you WISH you could get every channel in a cable television package, but have to pay extra, the picture above shows what the net WILL resemble when ISPs start to package tiers of services ON TOP of your existing broadband speeds.
If there was ever a reason to rally people behind Net Neutrality, the ominous threats of inequity, cost-for-access, and price gouging are just some we need to worry about. I fear the Information Age is going to become laden with explicit Information Tolls.
Ask not for whom the web tolls - it will toll worldwide.
Much has been written this past week about the Federal Trade Commission's "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising" which goes into effect December 1st, 2009. These guidelines effect all persons providing commentary (reviews) on products for which they have received any form of material compensation in exchange for their commentary. The FTC seems to be giving a pass to traditional media outlets such as newspaper, television, radio and magazine news outlets and concentrates on "real" individuals who give testimonials in exchange for money or products. Going forward these individuals have to disclose when they are receiving material compensation or face fines for not doing so.
Personally I think people should have been doing this all along and some have. Better bloggers will not risk ruining their credibility by endorsing a product which is substandard. Most consumers are smarter than the FTC seems to think. Consumers who are naive enough to grant credibility to a sponsored review on a blog or an infomercial are as likely to believe the same sort of fluff from a "valid" news organization or a magazine which has to print "advertisement" over a rave review for the next big thing. Since they don't appear to be doing much with these guidelines to protect consumers from themselves, what is the FTC really doing? Are they now in the business of regulating what qualifies as news? Several articles I've read have expressed this concern and I think it is valid. It deserves close scrutiny to examine how that all plays out. When Government gets involved in judging what is legitimate news and insinuating citizen journalism is illegitimate they are walking dangerously close to censorship similar to the Chinese model. I'm not sure that is what they are attempting to do nor do I think, if this were the FTCs motive, they could get away with it long term. There are too many individuals and lawyers to challenge them. What I have seen curiously absent is any mention of material compensation being monitored as income. At least I find it curious and I am not much of a conspiracy theorist. The United States is in the midst of an economic recession and the United States budget is running a previously incomprehensible deficit. Anyone would be foolish to think the United States Federal Government doesn't need as many tax dollars as it can get its hands on. You're likely thinking bloggers who collect Adsense revenue and the occasional freebie in exchange for a review are making peanuts for their efforts and in many cases you may be right but there is no doubt some freelancers are making a living from web content. Freelancers are self employed and it is generally easier for the self employed to juggle their books to appear as though they are making less income than they actually are. I can attest to this since part of my profession is to indemnify people for loss of income. The cost of these policies are partially based on the amount of income a person makes which is determined by how much the individual claims on their income taxes. When it comes time to collect on these indemnity policies it is not at all unusual for the policy holder to miraculously present alternate proof their actual income is greater than previously stated. As the public turns away from traditional media in favour of the internet and advertisers turn from conventional print advertising to viral and guerrilla internet marketing techniques there are increasingly more opportunities for individual freelancers to profit from new media. If PR firms are seeing this, I am seeing this, and freelancers are seeing this wouldn't it be naive to think the United States Federal Government isn't? Rather than wondering whether the FTC is crawling in bed with the FCC why isn't anyone wondering whether they are crawling into bed with the IRS?http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i16vlm3iDn2BQOr_qHdxxk4Q_qTAD9B6LPNG2
Well, Thomas Malthus warned more than 200 years ago of a food crisis as the industrial revolution expanded populations, and that did not happen either. So don't bet against technology. Incresed efficiency in wireless data protocols trumps spectrum capacity all the time.This morning in San Diego, Julius Genachowski, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission addressed attendees at the International CTIA WIRELESS I.T. & Entertainment Show. His remarks are important and worth a close reading.
In reaction, Vonya B. McCann, our senior vice president of government affairs, said the following:
Sprint Nextel shares with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski the view that American business and consumers benefit from the deployment of 4G mobile broadband networks. At Sprint, we are proud to be the first and only nationwide wireless carrier to offer 4G in the United States. For Sprint customers, 4G isn’t the future, 4G is here now. Sprint 4G is available in 16 markets today and we expect to offer Sprint 4G service to over 120 million people in 80 markets by the end of 2010.
Sprint is particularly pleased that the Chairman recognizes that the wireless industry depends upon affordable, high capacity middle mile lines. Sprint has long held in proceedings before the FCC that the market for these special access lines is broken and must be fixed. We look forward to working with the FCC to resolve this issue as we believe leaving this matter unresolved is harmful to the country’s broadband economy.
Lastly, Sprint is pleased that the Chairman recognized that there are real and relevant differences between operating wired and wireless networks. Sprint wants customers to be able to access the applications and the Internet sites they want, when they want. We look forward to working with Chairman Genachowski and the FCC as they create policies that meet the expectations of consumers, continue innovation in device development, and preserve the ability of carriers to manage networks in a reasonable and responsible manner.
Filed at 10:33 a.m. ET
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- The Federal Trade Commission will require bloggers to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.
It is the first time since 1980 that the commission has revised its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials, and the first time the rules have covered bloggers.
But the commission stopped short Monday of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest.
The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation.
The rules take effect Dec. 1.
Dec. 1st..just in time for all those Christmas gadgets all the A-listers will get. :)
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/01/comcast-and-nbc-universal-antitrust-apocalypse/
"It's virtually guaranteed that FCC [Federal Communications Commission] regulators would review this deal," Glenn Manishin, a former antitrust counsel and trial attorney at the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, toldDailyFinance. "This could be a signature case for Chairman [Julius] Genachowski to demonstrate the principles he enunciated when he was confirmed." Manishin predicted any deal would also face review by the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department.
The U.S. government plans to propose broad new rules Monday that would force Internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally, seeking to give consumers greater freedom to use their computers or cellphones to enjoy videos, music and other legal services that hog bandwidth.
The move would make good on a campaign promise to Silicon Valley supporters like Google Inc. from President Barack Obama, but will trigger a battle with phone and cable companies like AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp., which don't want the government telling them how to run their networks.
The proposed rules could change how operators manage their networks and profit from them, and the everyday online experience of individual users. Treating Web traffic equally means carriers couldn't block or slow access to legal services or sites that are a drain on their networks or offered by rivals.
The rules will escalate a fight over how much control the government should have over Internet commerce. The Obama administration is taking the side of Google, Amazon.com Inc. and an array of smaller businesses that want to profit from offering consumers streaming video, graphics-rich games, movie and music downloads and other services.
Julius Genachowski, head of the Federal Communications Commission, is also expected to propose in a speech Monday, for the first time, that rules against blocking or slowing Web traffic would apply to wireless-phone companies, according to people familiar with the plan.
Getty ImagesJulius Genachowski
Wireless carriers, which have been among the fiercest opponents of such regulation, continue to restrict what kind of data travels over the airwaves they control. For example, earlier this year, AT&T restricted an Internet-phone service from Skype so iPhone users couldn't place calls on AT&T's cellular network. At the time, AT&T cited network congestion concerns.
"We believe that this kind of regulation is unnecessary in the competitive wireless space as it would prevent carriers from managing their networks -- such as curtailing viruses and other harmful content -- to the benefit of their consumers," said Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA, the wireless industry's trade group.
If the FCC does force U.S. wireless carriers to open their networks to data-heavy applications like streaming video, it could push them beyond the limited capacity they have. Already, in areas like New York and San Francisco, a high concentration of iPhones has caused many AT&T customers to complain about degrading service.
In such a scenario, wireless carriers may have to rethink how much they charge for data plans or even cap how much bandwidth individuals get, said Julie Ask, a wireless analyst at Jupiter Research.
The FCC's proposal will take into account the bandwidth limitations faced by wireless carriers, according to people familiar with the plan, and would ask how such rules should apply to current networks.
The rules could encourage big Internet companies to launch new data-intensive services by establishing that their traffic can't be slowed or blocked. In the business market, companies that make Internet-phone services or video-conferencing software may invest more heavily in those services, some analysts say.
The rules are likely to be a big boon to smaller tech companies, like Silicon Valley start-ups and small makers of mobile software for Apple Inc.'s iPhone and other devices, that wouldn't be able to afford paying Internet providers for special access.
"Any company or piece of software that becomes popular, generating a lot of traffic, would tend to benefit," said Jonathan Zittrain, the co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.
The FCC has four "net neutrality" principles, which call on Internet providers to avoid restricting or delaying access to legal Internet sites and services. Carriers are permitted to block access to illegal services and sites.
Mr. Genachowski is expected to propose the agency clarify its current principles and turn them into formal rules. He will also tack on a new one, which would require carriers practice "reasonable" network management. The agency will ask for guidance on how to define "reasonable."
Most Internet providers have resisted "net neutrality" rules in the past, saying they have a right to control traffic on networks they own and it's not a good idea for the government to micro-manage Internet traffic.
Phone companies including AT&T have argued that they can live with the FCC's existing principles, but they've argued there's no reason to put more formal rules put into place.
Representatives from AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Comcast and Sprint Nextel Corp. declined to comment ahead of the FCC's anticipated announcement.
The proposals come as the FCC faces a federal appeals court case over its authority to regulate Web traffic. Comcast is fighting an FCC decision last year to ding it for violating the agency's "net neutrality" principles when it slowed traffic for some subscribers who were downloading big files. Comcast said it didn't violate any rules because the FCC had never formally adopted any, but it did change how it manages its network.
Republicans are likely to oppose the FCC's new proposal -- both at the FCC and in Congress -- arguing that the FCC is trying to fix problems that don't exist and that the agency should take a more hands-off approach to the fast-changing industry.
"With only a few isolated instances of complaints alleging net neutrality-like abuses ever having been filed, it is a mistake," said Randolph May, president of Free State Foundation, a free-market oriented think tank.
The concept of network neutrality originated with the nation's longtime telephone monopoly. AT&T and its successors were prohibited from giving any phone call preference in how quickly it was connected. Since the Internet was born on phone wires, the concept survived into the Internet age largely by default.
That notion was challenged toward the end of the 1990s, as cable companies began offering Internet service. Cable companies argued since they were content companies not phone companies, the principle of network neutrality didn't apply to them.
Phone companies responded by getting into the content business as well, with television service. As a result, both the cable companies and phone companies had incentives to create conditions on the Internet -- either through pricing or slowing or speeding up certain sites -- to favor their own content.
In 2005, the FCC deregulated the Internet business, by ruling that Internet providers were communications companies and not phone companies and, importantly, were therefore no longer subject to the old phone rules such as network neutrality.
The FCC instead created its four "guiding principles" for protecting network neutrality. They were vague enough to embolden those looking for ways around it. Major phone companies like AT&T subsequently said they were considering creating "fast lanes" on the Internet, available at a higher price -- plans they put on hold amid an outcry.
Now, by codifying the principle, the FCC is seeking to limit erosion of network neutrality.
Mr. Genachowski is expected to set plans to open a formal rule-making process on the issue at the FCC's October meeting. The rules would have to be approved by a majority of the FCC's five-person board; whose three Democrats support net neutrality.
