It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Google CEO Eric Schmidt says government regulation of Internet service providers (ISPs) is necessary. In fact, he said he thinks the entire concept of the Internet marketplace relies on it.
Schmidt spoke to conservative bloggers at the Republican National Convention on September 3 in St. Paul, Minn. He warned that if an Internet service provider were too large, it could use its size to create a “protected structure within the Internet” and suggested that would restrict competition – giving some content favorable treatment within its network.
Opponents of Schmidt’s point of view argue such corporate control hasn’t occurred, and therefore the government should remain hands-off. However, Schmidt argued it is still necessary and justified for the government to intervene just in case a company was able to “get that level of control” over the Internet.
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
I'm seriously considering boycotting ever using google again. These guys are becoming a bigger threat to us by the day IMO.
Originally posted by KaginD
Does anyone know of any other search engines aside from google, yahoo, or msn. I'm done after reading this. Google is going to be a hard habit to break, but I can't contribute to this madness. Thanks for the post!
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Isn't this showing that Google are against a two-tier internet ... ?
I mean, how is making laws to restrict ISPs' powers over the content on their networks a bad thing ("giving some content favorable treatment within its network")?
He wants the government to restrict the powers that ISPs have to essentially censor things ... so why are you all in a huff about this?
He warned that if an Internet service provider were too large, it could use its size to create a “protected structure within the Internet” and suggested that would restrict competition – giving some content favorable treatment within its network.
Originally posted by FadeToBlack
So what?
There is a difference between 'Government Regulation' of ISPs, and 'Net Censors'. Hell, I say I agree. Monopolies in the ISP business would be bad news.
No company would willingly hand the keys to their company over to the Government, that is just an irrational thought.
Nothing wrong with a couple laws to keep Internet Giants' in line. Keep in mind he is talking about regulation, is not control.
[edit on 9/6/2008 by FadeToBlack]
The only way ISP's could really do this was if the free market wasn't being applied. If the free market is in tact, then no ISP would ever think about making such a move alone. That ISP would lose customers quickly. If all the ISP's came into agreement and started doing this at the same time, I'm pretty sure that is illegal in the same way price fixing among businesses in a town is illegal.
Why making these laws is bad is for the same reason all these regulations and laws are bad. You are only in agreement with the power because that power is working in your favor.
But once you've given that power away then you are opening up that power to work against you as well. You have said it is the governments job to regulate the internet. From that moment forth you have in essence approved anything else the government feels they need to regulate on the internet.
I would personally rather keep this power to myself. And if an ISP were to put up such a policy, I would quickly change my provider.
Furthermore, when did it become ok for the government to tell a business what to do?
If that business is breaking the law and doing something illegal, then that business should be prosecuted for criminal acts(as I mentioned above), or they aren't doing anything wrong.
From what I've seen with regulations, they seem to punish everyone for the actions of a few. They go to increase costs on business making it so only the rich can succeed and the competition can't afford to keep up.
Sorry, but I trust the free market and consumer needs to better do the job than a bunch of politicians making laws based on what their lobbyists/top supporters want.
Originally posted by Progress
They are already thinking about it, since they know people have no where to go. You can bet they would get around the "at the same time" somehow. And then you would end up with a restricted internet for the next 5-10 years, before the govt wakes up. You must proactively stop this by regulating the corporations' rights. Just look at the "not allowed to run a server" type clauses.
The internet's intelligence is in the end nodes, they are preventing this with those kind of contracts. So they are already restricting your rights, and nothing is being done about it. That is why regulation is needed. Corporations are essentially dictatorships and can not be trusted.
Does this argument even make any sense in this context? In this case, this law would prevent ISPs from charging three times for internet access. As it is right now, you pay for your connection, and, for example, google pay for theirs. The ISPs either want to decide what sites you can go to, or charge google more to allow their customers access - even though google is already paying.
They already have that power. Now they are using it to protect your rights.
You, as an individual, are irrelevant. The wast majority can not choose their providers. They are limited to maybe two alternatives.
The US is supposed to be a representative democracy. For the good of the people, the govt must be able to pass laws that dictate what "laws" dictatorial entities such as corporations are allowed to take away from you in the name of profit.
When did it become ok for a business, subsidized by tax money, to restrict your rights?
First you must pass laws.
Occasionally that does seem to be true, however, this time it is not.
The market has no interest in providing what the consumer needs. It has an interest in making profit. Without this law, the most profit can be made by letting you buy yourself free from restrictions.
ISPs are already abusing their powers. Look into the comcast bittorrent issue.
Originally posted by badmedia
Originally posted by FadeToBlack
So what?
There is a difference between 'Government Regulation' of ISPs, and 'Net Censors'. Hell, I say I agree. Monopolies in the ISP business would be bad news.
No company would willingly hand the keys to their company over to the Government, that is just an irrational thought.
Nothing wrong with a couple laws to keep Internet Giants' in line. Keep in mind he is talking about regulation, is not control.
[edit on 9/6/2008 by FadeToBlack]
It is already illegal for those things to happen. You can't legally make a monopoly, just look at Microsoft. So it's already illegal. Why do you need new laws for something that is already illegal?
Originally posted by FadeToBlack
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of back-door ways to get around that. My point was... That regulation where it's needed isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be.