Threat To Net Neutrality In Europe 147
Narcissus writes to tell us that the European Parliament is planning a vote in the Industry, Transport, Energy (ITRE) committee that could reintroduce amendment 138 (currently amendment 46) which deals with safeguards to user rights on the internet and graduated response schemes. There are several online campaigns trying to drive awareness and action already but there is limited time to act. "The Council may propose a compromise version of amendment 138/46 that is completely neutralized, or that may even become the opposite of the original by allowing the 'three strikes' scheme instead of preventing it. According to the latest negotiations, am.138/46 wouldn't anymore be an article (that must be transposed by Member States in their law) but a mere recital that has just indicative value. It is urgent to contact the members of the ITRE committee to advise them to reject compromise with the Council that failed to respect the intent of the original amendment. The best would be once again to approve the amendment."
Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet (Score:5, Interesting)
It's less clear to me that this is the case.
You think Google is going to put up long with some idiot provider charging customers an extra $20/month to allow access to *.google.com/*
You think Google is going to share it's ad revenue with consumer ISPs? I'm just using Google as an example, but multiply this by all the big businesses out there.
Time Warner, Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc are all competing with each other using different technologies. Within the next 5 years or so you'll have fiber-class wireless connections available to your homes.
You really think every single player is going to be able to pull their head out of their butts long enough to coordinate something as complex as tiered internet?
Competition is going to keep net neutrality a reality until the basics fundamentally change. You may have the odd player who tries to nickel and dime their customers by over regulating their networks, but it'll be the minority, and there will be options.
Re:Give it Up! (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Yeah, because free markets did such a good job with the banking industry.
Not a free market. It's controlled by the *monopoly* called the Reserve Bank, which is itself controlled by the Congress, which mandated in the mid-1990s that banks must hand-out "no money down" loans. That eventually led to the housing crisis. That is not a free market. That's an oligarchy of 535 men.
A true free market would not have a Reserve Bank setting interest rates, but instead have interest rates that are set by each independent bank, and these rates would move up-and-down with supply-and-demand. Furthermore Congress would allow banks to decide for themselves who qualifies and who does not qualify for loans, based on income.
Yes that means some would hear the word "no". Oh well.
Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... (Score:3, Interesting)
> Personally I'm more interested in voting for people who can keep me in a job, keep inflation low, keep me and my family safe and prospering in the future.
We are getting close to Godwin's law.
> Being able to download copyrighted stuff without paying is WAY down the list of things of importance, if it even makes the list at all.
How is that about "being able to download copyrighted stuff without paying"?
Also, I don't think that keeping me in job or inflation low or keeping me and my family safe is the job of parliament.
The public will not like this (Score:4, Interesting)
If this even get close to being passed, mainstream media will have a field day, especially given that most UK tabloids despise Europe in its entirety already.
Perhaps this is a ploy to stimulate high street sales amirite?
Re:Give it Up! (Score:2, Interesting)
> which mandated in the mid-1990s that banks must hand-out "no money down" loans.
Care to back this up?
Also, that is a theory, which is totally new to me. And frankly, even assuming that might be the case, I fail to see how "no money down" loans can lead to the sub-prime crisis.
The canonical explanation which blames bad risk assessment (banks, rating agencies) seems much more plausible to me.
> A true free market would not have a Reserve Bank setting interest rates,[...]
The Fed is only setting the interest rate at which banks can borrow from other banks. Your interest rate and that of mortgages are decided by your bank in competition with other banks.
> Furthermore Congress would allow banks to decide for themselves who qualifies and who does not qualify for loans, based on income.
They already decide for themselves, but also include your securities and a lot of other factors. Unfortunately, they failed at that, because they relied too much on rating agencies, which overestimated the chances, because banks were too eager to get a piece of the sub-prime market. Positive feedback loop. Positive in the strictly numerical meaning.
Re:Give it Up! (Score:3, Interesting)
But at what point are you becoming a criminal? Is it going to be illegal in the future to even criticize your government? That happens in Australia... you'll just be getting banned. No, not you, but your website(!). You'll still be able to check it out, but no-one else will be able to so you're not even beinbg informed! That's scary...
By the way, I am so glad people still make normal hip-hop instead of "Fsck those b*tches yo, n shit" gangster-(c)rap. God I hate that! And what most artists still don't understand; your music is you promotion. Th money you make is live.
The best of luck with your music :D ;) I like it even though I solely listen to hard-dance in my spare time.