If you want the cable weasels to run the Internet like they run cable--or if you want the whole Internet to work like AOL--this is the decision for you.

Via the essential Sideshow, this:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided to abandon net neutrality and allow telecoms companies to charge websites for access.

The FTC said in a report that, despite popular support for net neutrality, it was minded to let the corporate kakistocracy market sort out the issue.

This means that the organisation will not stand in the way of companies using differential pricing to make sure that some websites can be viewed more quickly than others. The report also counsels against net neutrality legislation.

"This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving dynamic industry of broadband internet access, which is generally moving towards more, not less, competition," FTC chairman Deborah Platt Majoras wrote.

"In the absence of significant market failure, or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area."

It's a question of allowing the Internet to continue to work as it always has. That's what the corps want to change, to their own advantage, of course, and not oursL

"Mostly the FTC suggests ways that the telephone and cable companies could have new ways to make money from content and applications providers," said Art Brodsky, of internet advocacy group Public Knowledge.

"Or lower-income subscribers could be charged lower prices, subsidised by 'prioritization revenues' much as supported email services now provide free email accounts. Nowhere is there discussion of what the consumer gets out of the deal."

Well, why would there be? Why would anybody imagine that anything these people do would have anything to do with "consumers"?

Here's what we lose when the Bush regime takes net neutrality away from us:

Life Without Net Neutrality
It would be hard to imagine life without the Internet. It has become part of our daily lives, where we can gather news, meet people, exchange ideas, and register for classes. Here are just a few examples of what the Internet will be like if Congress fails to restore strong Net Neutrality protections:

• Censored Speech and Content. Without Net Neutrality, network providers can block or slow down access to sites they don’t like. Earlier this year, AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy group that was challenging AOL’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
• No User Choice. Without Net Neutrality, network providers – not you – will determine what services and equipment you can use on the Internet. For example, Cingular Wireless, run by AT&T, bars access to PayPal because it has struck a deal with another online payment service, which pays Cingular for that privileged status.
• Banned Chat Rooms. Without Net Neutrality, network owners can dictate whether you are allowed to visit popular chat rooms or if you will have to pay a cover charge to enter them. Think it can’t happen? Think again. Just this summer, BellSouth blocked its customers’ access to Myspace.com in Tennessee and Florida.
• Online Gamer Restrictions. Without Net Neutrality, fan sites, mod communities (individuals playing against each other), and MMORPGs (Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) might find their online gaming shut off. Network providers will be able to charge gamers tolls to access their favorite games, in addition to the broadband connection fee that most users already pay. Network providers would also be able to restrict gaming access to their own online gaming companies, shutting off any competitors.
• Expensive Downloads and Pod-casting. Without Net Neutrality, network providers could charge you more to download your favorite videos or music, or to use services such as Rhapsody, YouTube, Napster, and iTunes. Network providers can also tell you which download service you have to use, charging you a toll if you decide to use one of their competitors.

And if you've got a small startup, stand back:

Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts hit it right on the spot with his quote.

"The future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessens, of Netscape and
Google... are going to have to pay taxes to broadband. This vote will change the Internet for the rest of eternity."

I strongly agree with him here, look at it from the viewpoint of the CEO of a huge ISP. You notice a small startup company getting bigger and better, and you foresee these guy's making a ton of money in the future. Your ISP is owned by a media company who owns the largest social networking website on the internet. This new startup company is a social networking website that has better features and is 10 times cooler than your sister (step-sister?) site. What can you do to stop the new start-up company from overtaking your sister? Easy, charge this startup millions of dollars to use your network. This startup company says "NO WAY." and decides not to pay. What do you do? You block your users from accessing the startup company. This is exactly what Net Neutrality aims to stop.

And as for those pesky bloggers....

Happy Fourth!