Imagine an Internet where consumers paid a low price for basic service and more for add-ons such as 3-D video.
Or imagine if Comcast Corp., now seeking approval to acquire General Electric Co.’s NBC Universal, let its customers download Universal movies at superfast speeds, while relegating the latest Harry Potter film from rival Time Warner Inc. to the slow lane.
The Wall Street Journal just reported that the Federal Communications Commission is holding “closed-door meetings” with industry to broker a deal on Net Neutrality — the rule that lets users determine their own Internet experience.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on Thursday to begin the formal process of bringing the Internet under greater federal control — a move sought by both President Barack Obama and FCC Chairnman Julius Genachowski — even though federal law calls for an Internet “unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that regulators had limited power over Web traffic under current law. The decision will allow Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users.
…a much greater danger to the republic than the anointing of corporations as persons with the right to flood our airwaves with propaganda is any attack on Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is the principle that my blog is inexpensive to publish and to access, so that I and my readers have the same advantages in this regard as a corporation would. If the Right Wing ever manages to scale the internet and make me pay $70,000 a year to put up this blog and have it easily available to my readers, it will kill it and would signal a return to push media like the networks. And a push-media world where corporations own the Web and can push at us what they please, including their weird ideas about political reality, really would be Orwellian and dangerous.
The 40-year-old system might be vulnerable to technical collapse and cyberattack, which could cause widespread chaos in fields from banking to health care to government.
Secretary of State Peter Mandelson is planning to introduce changes to the Digital Economy Bill now under debate in Parliament. These changes will give the Secretary of State (Mandelson — or his successor in the next government) the power to make “secondary legislation” (legislation that is passed without debate) to amend the provisions of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988).
WASHINGTON — Federal regulators are considering whether the government should take greater control of the Internet and ask consumers to pay higher phone charges in order to provide all Americans with cheaper access to broadband Internet service.
Who do you want to decide which websites you can visit or what Internet content you can access — you or a big telecom company?
That’s what the fight about network neutrality is all about. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet users, not Internet service providers, should be in control.
A California court has issued a subpoena demanding Google reveal the IP addresses of journalists writing for a corruption busting journal from the Caribbean.
The carrier has written a letter to the Federal Communications Commission claiming that Google has violated the agency’s Net neutrality principles, which Google has long supported. Google defended its position in a blog post written by Richard Whitt, Google’s main lobbyist and telecommunications lawyer in Washington, that basically said AT&T is comparing apples and oranges.
The U.S. government plans to propose broad new rules Monday that would force Internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally, seeking to give consumers greater freedom to use their computers or cellphones to enjoy videos, music and other legal services that hog bandwidth.
Individuals accustomed to an ethical system based on the book regard any infringement on their authorial rights or any use of a published text, without appropriate permission, as a moral and legal wrong … In contrast, individuals who have become accustomed to hypertextual exchange tend to regard any impediment to free exchange as a serious wrong. The free development and dissemination of knowledge is more important than always giving precise credit where credit is due.
Silvio Gaggi, quoted by Lethe in The Blog of Innocence: Where do we stand on Internet Copyright Law? (via quotingthecrisis)
I remember being appalled by this commercial while living in Buffalo. I had to explain net neutrality to me roommates. I haven’t seen it in about 3 years, but then again I don’t watch TV. I’m guessing that’s why it aired on television and wasn’t as ad online. Have seen any anti Net Neutrality ads online?Im appaled at seeing it now. Unfortunately, propaganda works well on the weak minded, and on that note, the most weak-minded of individuals are consistently glued to their televisions (explaining why you havent seen this ad online, but on TV). Facism creeps into free societies by appealing to emotions and other securities, without the use of factual backing or encouraging it’s audience to inquire further.
Many alleged ‘free’ nations around the world are moving rapidly towards internet censorship. Limiting access to information is a sure sign of totalitarianism. Businesses in the ‘free market’ are already tossing their principles aside to allow such censorship to take place. If we believe it is condemnable to destroy the information in books, to prevent individuals from obtaining education, and to mask the public’s knowledge of the activities of their government, why would we suggest such despotic ideas as internet censorship?
Previous: Older Posts >
Total: 1 of 5 Pages
