The macosxhints Forums

The macosxhints Forums (http://hintsforums.macworld.com/index.php)
-   The Coat Room (http://hintsforums.macworld.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   The structure of the Internet? (http://hintsforums.macworld.com/showthread.php?t=42328)

ArcticStones 09-08-2007 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NovaScotian (Post 407147)
...the US throttle will look to the hoi polloi like censorship does to Chinese netizons. Until now, the best feature, the enduring feature of the net was that it wasn't politically controlled. Politicians hate that.

A tiered Internet is, indeed, a form of censorship -- even though the arguments may be packaged in economic terms.

And as far as I can see, the telcos are screaming to be paid twice. That strikes me as highly questionable, if not immoral.

J Christopher 09-08-2007 01:01 PM

The Clayton Antitrust Act (Abridged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcticStones (Post 407121)
.Roughly what are we talking about here?

I believe the following excerpts would be applicable. Bear in mind that I am not an attorney, and could be interpreting the Clayton Act in a manner inconsistent with legal precedent.

I think the compelling point is that the ISPs sell bandwidth, and not internet service. Their cost of supplying the customer with this bandwidth does not vary with the content, but rather the volume of data. Without evidence of such content based cost (of providing the bandwidth to the customer) variation, content based pricing variations appear to be unlawful.

CLAYTON ACT, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27, 29 U.S.C. §§ 52-53



§ 2 Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 13

Discrimination in price, services, or facilities

(a) Price; selection of customers
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered: Provided, however, That the Federal Trade Commission may, after due investigation and hearing to all interested parties, fix and establish quantity limits, and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to particular commodities or classes of commodities, where it finds that available purchasers in greater quantities are so few as to render differentials on account thereof unjustly discriminatory or promotive of monopoly in any line of commerce; and the foregoing shall then not be construed to permit differentials based on differences in quantities greater than those so fixed and established: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent price changes from time to time where in response to changing conditions affecting the market for or the marketability of the goods concerned, such as but not limited to actual or imminent deterioration of perishable goods, obsolescence of seasonal goods, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of business in the goods concerned.



(f) Knowingly inducing or receiving discriminatory price
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.
Discrimination in rebates, discounts, or advertising service charges; underselling in particular localities; penalties, 15 U.S.C. § 13a
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to be a party to, or assist in, any transaction of sale, or contract to sell, which discriminates to his knowledge against competitors of the purchaser, in that, any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge available at the time of such transaction to said competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity; to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.



§ 11 Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 21
Enforcement provisions

(a) Commission, Board, or Secretary authorized to enforce compliance
Authority to enforce compliance with sections 13, 14, 18, and 19 of this title by the persons respectively subject thereto is vested in the Surface Transportation Board where applicable to common carriers subject to jurisdiction under subtitle IV of Title 49; in the Federal Communications Commission where applicable to common carriers engaged in wire or radio communication or radio transmission of energy;




Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcticStones (Post 407121)
Personally I am even more concerned with the free exchange of ideas that is an essential underpinning of any true democracy. In this regards, the flat structure of the Internet has been a huge blessing. In fact the MacOSX Forums are but one modest example of that.

I suspect this is about telecom profits, but also control -- in the broadest possible sense of that word.

Tragic.

I agree completely. The internet has helped to level the playing field among the big and little players of the market. I think what we are seeing is another example of some of the big players exercising the most important Machiavellian rule of power, that is to do whatever it takes to stay in power, for without that power, one can accomplish little.

It is indeed unfortunate that the US Department Of Justice would explicitly support such unfair tactics.

cwtnospam 09-08-2007 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Christopher (Post 407170)
It is indeed unfortunate that the US Department Of Justice would explicitly support such unfair tactics.

Unfortunately, we get what we vote for. Our educational system's weaknesses over the last 30 years have caught up with us in the voting booths.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site design © IDG Consumer & SMB; individuals retain copyright of their postings
but consent to the possible use of their material in other areas of IDG Consumer & SMB.