"Net Neutrality"

Sara - posted on 08/05/2010 ( 17 moms have responded )

9,313

50

This is an op/ed piece. I thought it was interesting, what do you all think?

(CNN) -- If we learned that the government was planning to limit our First Amendment rights, we'd be outraged. After all, our right to be heard is fundamental to our democracy.

Well, our free speech rights are under assault -- not from the government but from corporations seeking to control the flow of information in America.

If that scares you as much as it scares me, then you need to care about net neutrality.

"Net neutrality" sounds arcane, but it's fundamental to free speech. The internet today is an open marketplace. If you have a product, you can sell it. If you have an opinion, you can blog about it. If you have an idea, you can share it with the world.

And no matter who you are -- a corporation selling a new widget, a senator making a political argument or just a Minnesotan sharing a funny cat video -- you have equal access to that marketplace.

An e-mail from your mom comes in just as fast as a bill notification from your bank. You're reading this op-ed online; it'll load just as fast as a blog post criticizing it. That's what we mean by net neutrality.

But telecommunications companies want to be able to set up a special high-speed lane just for the corporations that can pay for it. You won't know why the internet retail behemoth loads faster than the mom-and-pop shop, but after a while you may get frustrated and do all of your shopping at the faster site. Maybe the gatekeepers will discriminate based on who pays them more. Maybe they will discriminate based on whose political point of view conforms to their bottom line.

We don't have to speculate. We can look to the history of the media gatekeepers for examples.

We'll end up with a few mega-corporations in control of the flow of information, not just on TV, but online as well.


Back in the 1990s, Congress rescinded rules that prevented television networks from owning their own programming. Network executives swore in congressional hearings that they wouldn't give their own programming preferred access to the airwaves. They vowed access to the airwaves would be determined only by the quality of the shows.

I was working at NBC back then, and I didn't buy that line one bit. Sure enough, within a couple of years, NBC was the largest supplier of its own prime-time programming. To take advantage of this new paradigm, Disney bought ABC, Viacom (the parent company of Paramount) bought CBS and NBC merged with Universal.

And since these conglomerates owned both the pipes through which Americans received information (in this case, TV networks) and the information itself (in this case, TV shows), they developed a monopoly over what you could watch.

Today, if you're an independent producer, it's nearly impossible to get a show on the air unless the network owns at least a piece of it.

Now Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider, and NBC/Universal want to merge. This new behemoth would be able to charge other cable carriers more for NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo and the 35 other cable networks it will own in whole or in part. This means that other carriers won't be able to afford as many choices -- and it means that your cable bill will go up.

Comcast is also the nation's largest home internet service provider. And as more and more of our television is provided through the internet, other internet giants such as Verizon and AT&T will have to look toward merging with CBS/Viacom or ABC/Disney.

We'll end up with a few megacorporations in control of the flow of information -- not just on TV, but now online as well.

From my seat on the Judiciary Committee, I plan to do everything I can to stop these mergers or at least put rigorous restrictions on them. But if this trend toward media consolidation continues, the free and open internet will be a thing of the past unless we write the principle of net neutrality into law right now.

This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. Everyone has a stake in protecting the First Amendment.

And it isn't even strictly a political issue. The internet's freedom and openness has made it a hotbed for innovations that change our lives. It's been an incredible engine of job creation.

The internet was developed at taxpayer expense to benefit the public interest. If we let corporations prioritize some content over others, we'll lose what makes it so valuable to our economy, our democracy and our daily lives.

Net neutrality may sound like a technical issue, but it's the key to preserving the internet as we know it -- and it's the most important First Amendment issue of our time.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms

17 Comments

View replies by

Jenny - posted on 08/07/2010

4,426

16

The people want so many different things and are polar opposites on the political spectrum. Without Direct Democracy it is impossible to have representives who carry out the will of "the people". They are here to carry out the will of business who employ the people. Now we could have a case of having our last free space to bitch about it severly comprimised. I wish so much there was a way to access the internet without going through an ISP.

Isobel - posted on 08/07/2010

9,849

0

smoking provides NOTHING and is addictive to EVERY person who uses it. Alcohol can be yummy, and fun when used appropriately, the vast majority of alcohol users are not addicts. Food is needed to sustain us...but I do believe that fast food restaurants should be levied with a sin tax to make it more expensive than healthy food.



and you are right about your government...they are not serving you...they are serving the corporations who paid for their campaign :D

Iris - posted on 08/07/2010

1,993

29

"And now no peanuts on airplanes………….haha"

I agree with this decision 110%. If you have a child on the plane with severe peanut allergy, than your child is in danger. In this case I'd rather lose the privilege of chewing on peanuts than unexpectedly maybe cause a child on the plane to possibly die!

Diane - posted on 08/07/2010

694

18

“Do you mean the government does not represent what YOU want? Don't you believe the government is seated because the people voted them there? So is THIS government the enemy or are ALL governments the enemy?”

What I am saying is that our politicians do not represent the people who elected them. We are a Republic…and as a Republic they are to be our voice.

McCain certainly is not our states voice. And I could mention many more who are there simply because of the perks. What politician do you know …who does not have a giant sized ego?

Well I believe that sometimes we do not have a choice in the matter. I believe that it is my duty as a citizen to vote. And many times…I do not like anyone. You pick the best of the lot.

The next election for Senator I am not voting for McCain..I am voting for Hayworth…I don’t like him either. What do you mean all governments the enemy?
“smoking and chewing tobacco should be illegal...they provide nothing to their users other than addiction and death.”

So should alcohol then. And certain foods should be banned because they are unhealthy.

I am a non smoker but I believe if someone wants to smoke they should have the right as long as it is not in someones face. I think the government butts in too much. Look at the harm alcohol does?

Food is addicting….and so is drinking and gambling. Should we ban them too?

I do not even believe the government should tell you that you have to wear a seat belt. Minors yes…but not adults.

And now no peanuts on airplanes………….haha

http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/6/6/21...

Every new law that is put in place means we have less control over our own lives.

Jenny - posted on 08/06/2010

4,426

16

"The government is the enemy because it does not represent what the citizen wants."

Do you mean the government does not represent what YOU want? Don't you believe the government is seated because the people voted them there? So is THIS government the enemy or are ALL governments the enemy?

Isobel - posted on 08/06/2010

9,849

0

6 lobbyists for every congressman, I just looked it up :/

Isobel - posted on 08/06/2010

9,849

0

smoking and chewing tobacco should be illegal...they provide nothing to their users other than addiction and death.

Their are far more lobbyists for big business in Washington than there are politicians...

You've been trained very well to look at the wrong monkey. Like a magician's trick...if you think the government has any kind of control of your country you are deluding yourself.

Told ya I could wear a foil hat as good as anybody else could ;P

Diane - posted on 08/06/2010

694

18

I just heard on the news that the government now is trying to ban the chew that ball players use.
Now I think it is horrible....but chew is legal..and so are cigarettes. They are taking more and more rights away.

Diane - posted on 08/06/2010

694

18

“Anyhoodle... I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the govt is not your enemy...the people taking your freedom are the giant corporations, and if you can't see it, I can't show you, obviously.”

I don’t see It that way….Obama now controls the auto industry…its part of the government…so are the banks. The government is the enemy because it does not represent what the citizen wants. Our politicians and judges do not represent what the people want.
California voters voted down same sex marriage. They spoke at the polls. Now it is overturned by some liberal judge. Why did they even vote?

Hey what about the unions……the NEA? They are like big corporations...even worse.

“why does everything bring us back to Barack Obama trying to take away our constitutional rights?’

Because he is that’s why.

I am with Jenny on this…no government should be able to shut it down.

Isobel - posted on 08/06/2010

9,849

0

President Obama gets power to 'shut down' internet
Internet kill bill gets approval
By Marc Chacksfield

June 25th | Tell us what you think [ 6 comments ]
who-turned-out-the-lights-

Who turned out the lights?



The US Senate committee has approved legislation which effectively gives President Obama the power to shut off parts of the internet when there is a national emergency.

The legislation is called Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act and will allow the President in times of national emergency to implement response plans for protecting the infrastructure of the web, as well as the electrical grid and telcom networks.

Kill switch?

Although there has been a lot of criticism of the bill, those who approved it are adamant that it does not give Obama a 'kill switch' for the web, with the senate explaining that "it would make it far less likely for a President to use the broad authority he already has in current law to take over communications networks."

The senate also explained: "Only specific systems or assets whose disruption would cause a national or regional catastrophe would be subject to the bill's mandatory security requirements."

And we thought Obama was going to be given a big on/off web switch to go with his shiny red nuclear button.

The bill is an update of the Communications Act of 1934, modernising the US government's ability to safeguard its cyber networks from attack.

Read more: http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/p...


I don't know which "parts of the internet" they are referring to though.

Jenny - posted on 08/06/2010

4,426

16

The internet has no country, it can't be blamed on "the government". Although I don't agree with giving the President of any one country the power to shut it down either which has been in the news recently. Has that passed?

Sara - posted on 08/06/2010

9,313

50

Uh...yeah...the government has nothing to do with the concept of net neutrality, unless you count the lawmakers who are trying to make sure that YOUR free speech is protected, as well making sure that everyone is treated fairly on the internet. Just sayin'...why does everything bring us back to Barack Obama trying to take away our constitutional rights?

Isobel - posted on 08/06/2010

9,849

0

Just so you know Diane, that Canadian one is complete bunk...it does not originate from Canada, I've researched it before...but they have since removed the proof that I had that it was fake...though you can clearly see that the web designer is from California... I don't know why they call it that other than to make you think that Canadians think things that we clearly don't.



Anyhoodle... I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the govt is not your enemy...the people taking your freedom are the giant corporations, and if you can't see it, I can't show you, obviously.

Jenny - posted on 08/06/2010

4,426

16

It is very scary indeed. Revenues are cut from other forms of communication so like the good Capitalists they are they will force the net to bend to their profit structuring will. It makes we want to puke. The internet needs to remain the last bastian of true free speech.

Diane - posted on 08/05/2010

694

18

This is even more scary.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/186...

This is how governments control people. First it was the take-over of Detroit automakers, then the banking industry, now healthcare and the census.

Don't you see a pattern here? What about the public interest......do we get a choice?

So cybersecurity is a problem but our actual borders are not?

"My administration will pursue a new comprehensive approach to securing America's digital infrastructure,'' Obama said in an address in the East Room of the White House at the end of May. "From now on, they will be treated as they should be... as a strategic national asset. We will assure that these networks are secure.''

And what he was really saying was that the only way they will be secure is if he takes them over.

This is scary because the internet is a major form of communication in our country. And what would be classified as a cybersecurity emergency? And could he just take over private networks? Are just certain people of his choosing going to be able to get a license? Why does the government have to butt in..cant private industry take care of this?

This is another power grab by the administration.

Another article on Net neutrality.

http://csadispatch.blogspot.com/2010/04/...

ME - posted on 08/05/2010

2,978

18

wow...I totally didn't understand what all this net neutrality stuff was about...but this totally sucks! Big Corps are sickening...I get that their job is to make money, but they must still be run by human beings...or have all their souls died, and they're just shadows of what human beings are supposed to be???!!!???

Isobel - posted on 08/05/2010

9,849

0

It's the end of freedom of speech on the internet...the news has already been high-jacked, and surprise, surprise, it's not the government who's doing it.