The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
and hide everything else).

  Never mind the questions about basic human rights, what really baffles
my mind is that these directives are being promoted as *increasing* the
amount of choices people will have.

  I can't even begin to comprehend the Orwellian madness behind this logic.
Something which causes effect X is promoted as causing the exact opposite
of X. Limiting people's choice about what they can retrieve from the internet
is promoted as *increasing* people's choice about what they can retrieve
from the internet.

  And it's not like this would be the first thing ever that has been
promoted with its exact opposite.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
> Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
> powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
> words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
> and hide everything else).

I wasn't aware there was anything to prevent them doing that already...

Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose what they offer?  It's a bit like 
expecting your local newsagents to deliver any possible publication you ask 
for, why should they be forced to?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> I wasn't aware there was anything to prevent them doing that already...

Probably not.

> Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose what they offer?  It's a bit 
> like expecting your local newsagents to deliver any possible publication 
> you ask for, why should they be forced to?

Because it's no extra cost to them?

Not allowing you to access specific Internet services costs *more* 
because you now have to pay for filtering technologies.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
> Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
> powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
> words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
> and hide everything else).
> 
>   Never mind the questions about basic human rights, what really baffles
> my mind is that these directives are being promoted as *increasing* the
> amount of choices people will have.

Sure, it gives you lots of new choices:

- Package 1 only allows you to access item A.
- Package 2 only allows you to access item B.
- Package 3 only allows you to access item C.
- Package 4 only allows you to access items A and B.
- Package 5 allows you to access items A, B and D, but not C.
...

Of course, these are stupid, stupid choices, but hey, it'll allow ISPs 
to charge you way more money for exactly the same thing, which can only 
be good, right? (For the ISPs, that is.)

>   I can't even begin to comprehend the Orwellian madness behind this logic.

It's quite simple. This allows ISPs to make more money. ISPs like this. 
Where's the problem?

> Something which causes effect X is promoted as causing the exact opposite
> of X. Limiting people's choice about what they can retrieve from the internet
> is promoted as *increasing* people's choice about what they can retrieve
> from the internet.
> 
>   And it's not like this would be the first thing ever that has been
> promoted with its exact opposite.

Oh, right, that.

This is basic politics. Do something for reason A (which is 
reprehensible), and then claim you're doing it for reason B (which 
sounds good).



Personally, I can see two ways for this to play out. If some ISPs 
continue to offer access to everything for a reasonable price while 
other ISPs try to stop you accessing things without paying extra fees, 
the unlimited ISPs will suddenly become rather popular, and the other 
ISPs will be forced to either close or start behaving sensibly again.

Alternatively, if *all* the ISPs go down the route of limited access... 
well limited access is better than no access. It's not like people are 
going to cancel their subscriptions in protest. (Especially since ISPs 
will likely keep very quiet about this fact until after the event, once 
you have no choice but to accept their demands.) In that case, we're all 
stuffed.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
> > Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
> > powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
> > words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
> > and hide everything else).

> I wasn't aware there was anything to prevent them doing that already...

  I'm pretty sure that if ISPs started selling their bandwidth to the
highest bidders and blocking the rest, that would break at least a dozen
of fair commerce statutes. That's completely akin to boycotting.

> Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose what they offer?

  Because of basic human rights of freedom of information, and fair
commerce principles?

  An ISP has no right to start censoring information, especially not for
commercial reasons.

>  It's a bit like 
> expecting your local newsagents to deliver any possible publication you ask 
> for, why should they be forced to?

  No, it's not like that. It's like your local newagent using technical
measures to stop you from accessing competitor publications.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose what they offer?  It's a bit like 
>> expecting your local newsagents to deliver any possible publication you 
>> ask for, why should they be forced to?
>
> Because it's no extra cost to them?

So every company should be forced to do things that are no extra cost to 
them?

What next, BMW being forced to give you the 180 horsepower engine for the 
price of the 140 horsepower version, because it's no extra cost for them? 
(they are the same engine)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >   I can't even begin to comprehend the Orwellian madness behind this logic.

> It's quite simple. This allows ISPs to make more money. ISPs like this. 
> Where's the problem?

  I was not talking about the logic if ISPs wanting these directives to be
passed.

  I was talking about the logic of argumenting that limiting choice is
increasing choice.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Sure, it gives you lots of new choices:
>
> - Package 1 only allows you to access item A.
> - Package 2 only allows you to access item B.
> - Package 3 only allows you to access item C.
> - Package 4 only allows you to access items A and B.
> - Package 5 allows you to access items A, B and D, but not C.
> ...
>
> Of course, these are stupid, stupid choices, but hey, it'll allow ISPs to 
> charge you way more money for exactly the same thing, which can only be 
> good, right? (For the ISPs, that is.)

That will only happen if all ISPs work together to fix the prices, which is 
strictly illegal under EU law.  And even if it did happen, there would be an 
irresistable opportunity for a new ISP to start up offering cheaper access 
to everything, taking all the customers and making a huge profit.

> Personally, I can see two ways for this to play out. If some ISPs continue 
> to offer access to everything for a reasonable price while other ISPs try 
> to stop you accessing things without paying extra fees, the unlimited ISPs 
> will suddenly become rather popular, and the other ISPs will be forced to 
> either close or start behaving sensibly again.

Exactly.

> Alternatively, if *all* the ISPs go down the route of limited access... 
> well limited access is better than no access. It's not like people are 
> going to cancel their subscriptions in protest. (Especially since ISPs 
> will likely keep very quiet about this fact until after the event, once 
> you have no choice but to accept their demands.) In that case, we're all 
> stuffed.

As I said, there would then be an irresistable opportunity for some company 
to make a shed-load of profit.

Being an ISP is not like, say, providing live coverage of a sporting event, 
there is no restriction to how many companies can offer it.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> So every company should be forced to do things that are no extra cost to 
> them?

  Every company should be (and is) forced to submit to basic human rights
which include, among others, freedom of information. No company has the
right to actively censor information from its clients.

  An ISP blocking part of the internet would be active censorship. They
are creating measures to deliberately block certain IP packets and not
others.

> What next, BMW being forced to give you the 180 horsepower engine for the 
> price of the 140 horsepower version, because it's no extra cost for them? 
> (they are the same engine)

  Your slippery slope argument is rather hilarious.

  What do car engines have to do with freedom of information and censorship?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  I'm pretty sure that if ISPs started selling their bandwidth to the
> highest bidders and blocking the rest, that would break at least a dozen
> of fair commerce statutes. That's completely akin to boycotting.

Happens already, here at work we pay extra to get guaranteed bandwidth, we 
have priority over people who pay the "cheap" residential rate.

>  Because of basic human rights of freedom of information, and fair
> commerce principles?

How about the human right to run a company in a way to maximise profits?

>  An ISP has no right to start censoring information

You are talking like there is some basic human right that you should have 
access to every single website in existance?  Why on Earth should that be 
the case?

>  No, it's not like that. It's like your local newagent using technical
> measures to stop you from accessing competitor publications.

"Sorry, we don't sell that publication" is a perfectly valid and legal 
phrase.  Same as how in pubs that sell Coke they don't sell Pepsi.  Why 
should you be able to force companies to offer everything, if they don't 
want to that's their choice.

Post a reply to this message