In Lessig's 2006 article: No Tolls on the Internet, he goes into detail about how congress will be deciding whether the internet will remain free and open or become the property of cable and phone companies. With the center of the debate, which is a most important public policy, being something called "network neutrality", which simply means that all Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network. All of the intelligence and control is held by producers and users, not the networks that connect them.
The Federal Communications Commission eliminated this rule. So now congress faces the obstacle and will decide to reinstate it. By not reinstating this, it allows big companies and corporations, that back the commission, to control the content, that is the internet, by charging what they deem appropriate, and at what speed, and to who would get the better packages.
It's like having to pay the toll at a toll bridge. Once you pay the toll you are guaranteed access. So these companies would guarantee quality delivery for payment. But they would still have the power to control what you have access to and what content is available. They would not have any problems keeping out the competition.
The article states that without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing, and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use.
These limits and controls would put a dark cloud over those websites and services that equal about 60 percent of the web, which are created by us regular people. We would have to get permission, jump through hoops, and have to pay an insane amount of money to do so. It would eliminate a great deal of content and innovations because us regular people would not have the means or capital to be able to do this anymore. How could we DTC students afford our websites in order to gain clients and sell our services?
The internet, the way we know it, would be drastically changed and monopolozied upon. The way we would navigate through a page would change, our search engines would be different, options and links on a page would grow slimmer. We would not have access to all things one could imagine, unless we could really afford it. And at what cost, really? There is already a digital divide globally, this would cause an even greater digital divide. The way we look to the internet to be resourceful and useful could be changed dramatically.
How could we leave this up to congress to decide? People in congress have money and power, they can and have been bought, paid out, they have more to gain and really, nothing to lose. This effects us regular, everyday people.
Go to: http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought this was a very interesting post, which brought up some good points. It seems we may take for granted the kinds of freedoms we have on the web, without having to pay for these services, and webcites! The descriptions in your post really reflected how it could be, and it seems to spark some interest in wanting to cherish these freedoms more. Very good ideas!
ReplyDeleteGood and interesting post! All of us do have these freedoms and certainties as we have for some time now on the internet. Things should stay the way they are now. Not everyone can afford to have access to everything they need. Students (not all of them work!) could not find all the research they need for papers, and health companies and the such (that you listed in your fourth paragraph) would go broke because they either pay the high tariffs or lose alot of information access. I believe the Web would suffer greatly without everyone being to find what they needed. More and more people would "just say no" to a much more useless internet. You're right; Congress has all that power and money...easy for them to say what's going to happen and produce denials for many people. The internet works for most of the world and we cannot, as a nation, allow our internet freedoms to find information we need and use to be taken away from us. Very interesting article, Adriana.
ReplyDeleteNet neutrality is a HUGE topic. I think that it's awesome that you found a Lessig article about it. The cable TV analogy is so accurate, and putting corporations in charge of content and access is about as bad as the Chinese government's stranglehold on Google China. I mean, really, the beauty of the Internet is freedom and the ability for users to publish content whether they're poor DTC students, or massive corporations. Having read a chapter in one of Lessig's books, I have not doubt he made for some interesting articles and analogies and would love to read the article you summarized above. Nice work.
ReplyDeleteSonofa . . . I can't figure out how to edit my comment. Oh well. Above, I said "interesting articles and analogies . . ." and I meant 'arguments' not 'articles.' As if you couldn't figure that out I'm sure, I decided to waste more space on your blog by amending my comment with an extremely long "fixer" comment. Nice work Derek.
ReplyDeletegood summary, Adriana
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting debate. On one side of the equation, we have the idea that information should be free, but on the other, we have ... well... the government.
ReplyDeleteThe core question here is whether or not the internet is a public "right" similar to say, electricty. If we think that it is, then government regulation is indeed the way we need to go.
However, either way it's a slippery slope. Perhaps a middle ground would be for the goverment to impose some kind of regulation, like they do for telephone companies right now.
Nice summary!
This issue seems to be one that gets brought up with each new media technology. From radio to television to internet -- who has control over these forms of media? To what extent would that control be manifested? Who has the right to censor content? How is it decided which content will be censored?
ReplyDeleteThe nice thing about "net neutrality" is that big corporations would be prevented from coming in and profiting off of people (like DTC students), to promote their own agendas. For example, you may have to buy webspace from a politcally conservative company....even though you are a liberal. Well, by buying space from this company (which you would have basically no control over), you would inadvertantly be supporting a political agenda which you do not share.
Maybe that makes no sense. Maybe I shouldn't post responses after midnight.