Net Neutrality Is Necessary for Free Exchange of Ideas

[Ichingcarpenter]

Net Neutrality Is Necessary for Free Exchange of Ideas

From City on a Hill Press, February 7, 2008


The magic of the Internet is not lost on us. We are the YouTube generation, cursed with the capabilities of extreme multicrastination.

We surf, we Digg and we blog, all without realizing the ongoing fight for control of the web.

Currently, the Internet is “neutral,” which means that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) cannot prioritize one website over another. According to net neutrality, cityonahillpress.com has just as much right to deliver information to its viewers as the website of the New York Times or of Microsoft. The Internet portrays a true definition of free speech to an extent that our parents could only have dreamed of, but this is being threatened.

In 2005, AT&T suggested allowing some companies to pay for preferential treatment to prioritize access to their web content. After heavy protest, however, this notion fizzled.

But the debate continued when Comcast, which owns the majority of the cable lines for high-speed Internet, began interfering with the activities of its users. In October 2007, the Associated Press discovered that Comcast was actively disrupting peer-to-peer file sharing, particularly the wildly popular BitTorrent. Critics maintain that Comcast wants to disrupt the trade between videos on its lines so that it can prioritize its own video service.

When a public service is forced to compete in a capitalist market, something gets lost in translation. For a comparison, look at the difference between cable news and PBS.

The 24-hour news cycle has taken over on CNN. The network sells ads, and comes up with content that’s interesting enough to capture enough attention to fulfill the goal of every corporation in America: making money. The 24-hour news cycle has destroyed journalism, forcing reporters to find something to fill every minute of every day. As a result we find ourselves watching Britney’s latest debacle on news channels more frequently than world issues or current affairs. Meanwhile PBS takes the time to report a deeper story and the end result is satisfyingly clear.

If independent sites are forced to earn the money it takes for their content to be viewable, it will degrade the quality and integrity of their organization. If corporations dominate the Internet, they will be able to censor news and information as they see fit.

The Internet, like the radio, was hailed as a wondrous technological innovation that allows the little guy to have his voice heard.

Let’s keep it that way.

http://www.freepress.net/news/30221

[blondie58]

1. yep, it is essential that we keep it neutral

we already have enough propaganda thrown at us. Thanks for posting, Iching carpenter.

[caseycoon]

2. K&R Absolutely essential! n/t

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Ichingcarpenter.

[Elspeth]

4. And another K & R

we should get this onto Greatest page

[AmyDeLune]

5. and Another! n/t

[JTFrog]

6. Another reason to vote for Obama.

http://obama.3cdn.net/780e0e91ccb6cdbf6e_6udymvin7.pdf

Barack Obama’s comprehensive technology and innovation plan will:

• Ensure the full and free exchange of information among Americans through an open Internet and
diverse media outlets.
• Create a transparent and connected democracy.
• Encourage the deployment of a modern communications infrastructure.
• Employ technology and innovation to solve our nation’s most pressing problems, including reducing
the costs of health care, encouraging the development of new clean energy sources, and improving
public safety.
• Improve America’s competitiveness.

Yes there is a GLARING difference between the candidates:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2369

Today, Obama is throwing down the gauntlet on internet freedom, telecom lobbyists, and on opening up government in general to the public. It's some genuinely radical stuff, and it includes the use of blogs, wikis, and openness in government hearings. Significantly, Larry Lessig has endorsed Obama's platform.

----

And then of course there is spectrum and net neutrality. Both Edwards and Obama have made it clear they will break the power of the wireless gatekeepers, the telecom lobbyists who gut our laws, and the Comcast traffic shaping tyrants. Clinton, though, has been a noted absence in the debate about spectrum, mumbling about it incoherently at Yearlykos, and her plan for broadband was written by the telcos and doesn't include net neutrality. She still hasn't come out clearly on retroactive immunity, as her campaign's ties to telecom lobbyists are not trivial, and it looks from her possible FCC choices that her administration would be a continuation of the Clinton-Bush years of media and telecom deregulation.

[Elspeth]

7. There's a reason we have a GD Primaries forum.

That's to prevent candidate supporters from Bogarting an issue.