Posts
Free Internet Is Under Threat
When we log onto the Internet, we take a lot for granted. We assume we'll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want, at the fastest speed, whether it's a corporate or mom-and-pop site. We assume that we can use any service we like — watching online video, listening to podcasts, sending instant messages — anytime we choose. Network Neutrality — or "Net Neutrality" for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.Net neutrality, which is part of the telecommunications bill working its way through the U.S. Congress, is not a simple subject. In the first place, there are different definitions of the term. In addition, consumers and companies will take both sides of the argument, depending on whether they are receiving or sending content - and that role can change from hour to hour.
But it boils down to this:
The consequences of a world without Net Neutrality would be devastating. Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives.
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control — deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.
The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.
The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.
Here is the video that explains it all:
Or from the words of the inventor of the Internet, founder of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), and one of the leading voices of Net Neutrality:
And this is my tribute:
Inspired by the lyrics of "Video Killed the Radio Star" with apologies to The Buggles.
What can I do to help?
This post was written by Michael Beck from Digital Nomads. Information via STI and IHT. If you are interested in contributing to the thinking process and become a guest writer on The Thinking Blog, find out more information here and be my guest!
But it boils down to this:
If you are "for" net neutrality - as are Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and eBay - you believe that the Internet is a public resource that should be used to convey data "neutrally." In other words, a bit is a bit, whether it is part of someone's e-mail, an Internet voice conversation or a pirated movie, and whether it travels by slow-speed dial-up phone lines or ultra-fast fiber-optic lines.
If you are "against" neutrality, like Cisco, AT&T, Verizon - you believe that companies should be able to offer more, faster or special content and services over the Internet to some customers for a higher price, much like cable TV operators do. (Either that or you think the government should not legislate on it, letting the marketplace decide how to price, send and prioritize packets.)
The consequences of a world without Net Neutrality would be devastating. Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives.
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control — deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.
The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.
The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.
Here is the video that explains it all:
Or from the words of the inventor of the Internet, founder of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), and one of the leading voices of Net Neutrality:
"When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Now, hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going end" - Sir Tim Berners Lee.
And this is my tribute:
They took the code for your new technology.
Rewrote the laws with no Net Neutrality,
and now we understand it's no longer free.
Inspired by the lyrics of "Video Killed the Radio Star" with apologies to The Buggles.
What can I do to help?
- Sign the SavetheInternet.com petition.
- Call your members of Congress today and demand that Net Neutrality be protected.
- Encourage groups you're part of to sign the "Internet Freedom Declaration of 2007"
- In your own words, tell the FCC why you need a free and open Internet.
- Show your support for Internet freedom on your Web site or blog.
- Tell your friends about this crucial message before it's too late. Only 20 days left!
This post was written by Michael Beck from Digital Nomads. Information via STI and IHT. If you are interested in contributing to the thinking process and become a guest writer on The Thinking Blog, find out more information here and be my guest!
13 thoughts:
Thanks so much for posting this, Ilker. This is one of the most crucial issues facing us today. In the U.S., we already no longer have a free press on television, in print, or on the radio. The Internet is the last bastion of hope. Where else can we get real news?!
Peace,
Mike
I am constantly watching more and more, sometimes subtle sometimes not, pressure being applied to Web 2.0 in this regard. Internet Radio is being hammered into submission by the government and their special interests (money).
Mike is right in that this medium may be the last holdout for anyone with a voice. I suspect there is great fear that traditional power structures will be adversely effected.
The question is: " Why is freedom on the Web adverse if the powers trying to control it are on the up-and-up?" We had better be very careful this time around as carrier pigeons can only carry so much dissent so far.
Always,
Phil Butler
it's pretty crazy when you think about it. all things start free. the interent started as just a group of networked computers. eventually people want to find ways to make money on a service. i think that there will be more innovative ways created to make more revenue from the internets uses and not based on the usage. hopefully this will blow over and everyone can resume their regularly scheduled programming. keep the internet free
This is another conspiracy story, yet again, internet is gonna stay free, for one simple reason, cuz either way, big people are making money out if (see. advertising).
Well, I'm glad you presented the issue as neutrally as you did (no pun intended) and appreciate the input. I do think that people have lost track of their own rights, both online and off, and both in the US and abroad. It's important for people constantly to be reminded of what rights they do and don't have, so they can make educated decisions about what isues to take action on!
I've been sitting on the fence on this for a while. I am all 'for' Net Neutrality, but I noted some time ago that the definitions are lacking. If Net Neutrality means 1) that the companies cannot offer additional services to consumers that they may be able to profit from, I am against it. However, if Net Neutrality means that 2) companies cannot intentionally use bandwidth the consumer is paying for for purposes that interfere with normal internet usage, I am all for it.
With definition 1, even companies such a s Microsoft or Google can pay an additional fee to offer (for example) high definition content (essentially, a second, higher speed network). It would be proper for them to pay for this access, as should the customer. But if they do not want it, nothing says they have to have it.
With definition 2, it means that companies cannot throttle down the speed of traffic from sites (such as Google) that refuse to pay additional fees to 'guarantee' the user (who is paying for the right to use their internet connection) gets access to ALL sites at the maximum speed allowed by the combination of computers between point A and point B, just as it is now.
Without defining this (and other similar) critical issues, both sides are wandering blindly down a path that will hurt one side, if not both.
Consumers pay for the right to use their internet to access the internet. Beyond that, building on top of or beside should be allowed, removing from that should not.
I'm definitely hoping that the internet remains a free source of communication, marketing, and everything else. There is really no need for it not to be since you really do have to dish out some money for many things on the web anyway. As far as for free press, we do still have that right correct? Or do we not? I'm with andres in saying I hope this will all blow over!
How can people outside of the USA have some influence on this. This is an iternational issue, but whatever way America goes, we will all be heading in the same direction. So what can we do to alter this. I myself will be e mailing Gordon Brown(our new PM) to say something needs to be done to keep the internet free
This is a crucial message and we all should start acting before its too late. Once they vote one way or another - our voices will only be left to bitch about injustice.
To anyone who thinks they can wait, think again. On December of last year we have seen our government act against wishes of the majority of US population by banning online gambling. It doesn't matter on which side of the issue anyone one of us was at the time - what matter is that they took action to satisfy special interests and ignoring majority. All because that majority didn't voice their opinion loud enough or waited to do so until it was too late. Our basic freedoms been taken away one by one and here is our chance to act while we can.
Thanks for great post, I for one will take part.
To Alex-
Just wait and watch. It is exactly the same thing as your gambling illustration. Gambling will come back , but under the control of the big gambling concerns.
Well, that just says the wild west times of the Internet are over and now lobby groups are pushing in with heavy regulation that will basically screw things up. I think that is kind of unavoidable because this is the modell for everything that has grown big - but then, in the end it's rarely as bad as it might have gotten. Sure, sometime there's some tough years, but after that things get better again. So in the long run, humanity got along just well and fine.
12 days left and it's not looking too good.
What do you think? Post your thoughts..