EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Losing the Internet as We Know It
How much have you already used the Internet today?
We don't think twice about how much we rely on the Internet. Imagine not being able to map directions on Google or check the weather online. A business that doesn't have a Web site? Forgettable. Or rather, unsearchable. Remember when we didn't have e-mail? Would you want to go back to those Dark Ages? Me neither.
The Internet is in the very fabric of how we communicate, learn, shop, conduct business, organize, innovate and engage. If we lost it, we'd be lost.
But did you know that we're at risk of losing the Internet as we know it? Millions of Americans don't know that a battle over the future of the Internet is being played out right now in Washington. How it ends will have deep repercussions for decades to come.
On one side are public interest and consumer groups, small businesses, Internet entrepreneurs, librarians, civil libertarians and civil rights groups who want to preserve the Internet as it is - the last remaining open communications platform where anyone with access and a computer can create and consume online content.
Right now a film student in Idaho can upload a video the same way a Hollywood movie studio can. A small upstart company can launch a brilliant idea that challenges the Fortune 500. An independent journalist can break a story without waiting for a newspaper to run or print it.
The principle of "Network Neutrality" is what makes this open communications possible. Net Neutrality is what allows us to go wherever we want online. Our relationship with the phone and cable companies stops when we pay for our Internet service. These companies can not block, control or interfere with what we search for or create online; nor can they prioritize some content over others -making the Hollywood video load faster than the kid's video in Idaho.
On the other side are the Internet service providers, who want to dismantle Net Neutrality. Not only do they want to provide Internet service, but they want to be able to charge users to prioritize their content, effectively giving themselves the ability to choose which content on the Web loads fast, slow or not at all. The film student, the small entrepreneur, and the independent journalist will be lost in the ether, unable to compete with other, more established companies who can pay for a spot in the fast lane.
Gone is the level playing field. Gone is the multitude of voices on the Web. Gone is the Internet as we know it - unless we act now.
The Federal Communications Commission is crafting new Net Neutrality rules right now. The public has until Thursday at midnight to tell the FCC what we value about the Internet, and why we want the agency to create a strong Net Neutrality rule to protect it.
I'm filing my comments today, and I have to admit, it's a little tough -- not because I'm at a loss for words, but because there's so much to say.
I'm filing because:
- An open Internet gives me freedom of expression - freedom to write and share my views and the freedom to find alternative viewpoints;
- I want other, smarter people to come up with the next Google, the next YouTube, the next Web application that I can't even imagine;
- I want to read about people and cultures that are different from me;
- Mainstream media make me scream expletives, and I use the Internet to find alternative sources of news and information;
- I want to e-mail my boyfriend a link to a picture that reminds me of our last vacation;
- Net Neutrality means I don't need anyone's permission to create my own videos, and media execs aren't determining what's funny - we are;
- I come up with potential million-dollar ideas all the time, and some day, I just might start my own business;
- An open Internet feeds the activist in me, allowing me to engage with my community and organize for social change online;
- It's winter and I'd rather shop online, only I still want to support a local business;
- I needed advice on how to prime and paint a room, and found a video online that taught me how to do it; and,
- I don't want to be censored.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
34 Comments so far
Show AllBy all means, comment, but just remember, the FCC has gone from being the watchdog of the people to the lapdog of the communications cartels.
It is worth trying, but remember, the FCC was originally established to protect the "airwaves" for the people and the "public interest."
In the past decade or so, its function has apparently been to limit that protection and allow, or even promote, the takeover and control of all means of communication by the mass media and communications companies.
At one time, it was illegal for any one company to own more than one radio station, one TV channel and one newspaper in an area. Now, the FCC has allowed a handful of conglomerates to control everything except the internet. They have been very compliant in promoting control of the internet to the same octopus that controls everything else in communications.
There have been a number of polls taken which ran 90+% against the conglomerates gaining control. The FCC has ignored that and done as it is told by its corporate masters.
You are exactly right. The FCC will be no more helpful to the people than the EPA is and I am doubtful that bombarding them with emails will change anything. It's as simple as "check all, delete all."
If nothing else, it is a comfort to know the FCC now has my address.:(....
FCC was captured by the communications industry long ago. is Michael Powell still the Honcho? yea the internet its pure democracy they will steal it. precious. yes they will.
Julius Genachowski
Chairman
Michael J. Copps
Commissioner
Robert M. McDowell
Commissioner
Mignon Clyburn
Commissioner
Meredith Attwell Baker
Commissioner
http://www.fcc.gov/
Gary
Under Obama we are at war, we lost Single Payer, then we lost Public Option, then we got more Mountain Top removal permits for the Coal Industry, we got more TARP (no CEO left behind), more renditions and torture through the back door; we got CHeney's assassination General in Iraq - McChrystal - calling the shots in Afghanistan to insure the body count of innocents hit a new time high; we got FISA solidified to reduce our civil rights; we got Habeus Corpus taken off the books; so why is taking away internet access a big deal for the true believers of the Obama Admin?
This issue should be on Facebook. Or "MyFace" as an elderly friend of mine once said. It should be tweeted and twittered.
If net neutrality is not preserved, then we will have telecommunications companies taking over, controlling content and charging for it as they did with TV. "Net neutrality" is a strange term. We need another term that communicates the idea better. Something that implies the open, diverse and shared nature of the net.
A rebellion against corporate takeover of the internet is necessary and possible. After all, those who use the net and want to keep it have the perfect organizing tool at their fingertips.
And yes, I agree with those commenters who warn us not to wait for the FCC to do the right thing.
Joe
Actually, it is on Facebook . . . though I'm not sure about MyFace. : )
Common Dreams has a Facebook page, and they just posted this article this afternoon. I became a "fan" of the CD page a while back, so this article showed up on my own home page. I am now posting it for all my friends to see, as we speak.
Send this to everyone you know!
I trust Obama will do the right thing. He is the Messiah. People cried last Nov and on Jan 20th!
The Powers That Be (you know who they are) have been after this for a long time, for the same reason the police are cracking down on cameraphone owners recording their depradations. It's been coming for a long time and, if the net hadn't been so profitable for so many, it would have happened already.
Protest all you want and bless your hearts for doing so, but neither the FCC nor anyone else in public office anywhere cares a bit about whether or not you or I approve.
Face it, folks, MyFace or Twitbook not withstanding, we have no leverage with our owners and operators, none whatsoever, so whatever will be will be whether we like it or not.
As always, hoping I'm wrong.
While the country obsesses over Simon Cowell's departure from American Idol, Mark McGwire's steroid use and other worthless drivel those tasked with distracting us with their nutrient-free content have put the finishing touches on their propaganda to take over the internet.
Take a read of this pap, it's BRILLIANT in its deception:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20091230/tc_pcworld/
fccmovestowardnetneutralityrules_1
Yes, according to the above article you and I are the ones who wish to destroy the open internet. Big media and big telco wish to save it. Net neutrality will have to be dismantled to achieve this result. Kind of like killing the patient to save it.
That's the angle they're going to use, so be prepared to counter it.
The front group for all this malarky is the "Progress and Freedom Foundation" (another Orwellian named organization). So who is the PFF? Who is this group we're up against?
-AT&T
-CBS Corporation
-Comcast Corporation
-Cox Enterprises
-DIRECTV
-EMI Group
-Entertainment Software Association
-Intel Corporation
-GoDaddy.com, Inc.
-Google Inc.
-Microsoft Corporation
-National Cable & Telecommunications Association
-NBC Universal
-The News Corporation Limited
-Oracle Corporation
-Sony & BMG Music Entertainment, Inc.
-Time Warner Inc.
-Time Warner Cable
-T-Mobile
-USTelecom - The Broadband Association
-VeriSign, Inc.
-Verizon Communications
-Viacom Inc.
-Vivendi
-The Walt Disney Company
In 20 years people will hardly believe that at one time you were actually free to visit any website without interference or deterrence. We are living in the "Golden Days" of the internet. Enjoy.
I note APPLE is conspicuously absent from this list.
Props to them.
Man, net culture is weird.
So, you're a Marxist who gives "props" to capitalist corporations based on their behavior (or at least the lack of evidence of their misbehavior in one post on one matter)?
Is Apple Inc.'s non-participation in such an effort meant to demonstrate their commitment to the social take-over of the means of production, or what?
Sorry to harp on ya, it is just amazing how the meaning of the term "Marxist" as drifted in our culture.
No offense meant. :)
Well. lol
I understand your point, but please don't confuse my recognition of Apple for NOT being on that particular list of bad actors for any support of the capitalist system more generally. I have to live in the society I have, not the one I wish I had.
I promise, If I were ever put in charge of things, US society would be unrecognizable.. In a good way, a sustainable way that makes some sort of rational sense given the limited resources available on this planet.
Most people would applaud these changes, and live better lives as a direct result.. (except for the corporate-exploitive-capitalist militarist-imperialist types.. you know, the criminals that are currently running things now.)
Do you mean that our corporations want to give us all the freedoms that the people of North Korea have? Such sweethearts!
This writer and those who sympathize with her want a Net Republic, not Net Neutrality, they just haven't figured it out yet.
As long as bandwith is short of bandwith demand (which with current tech is likely always) than prioritizing use of bandwith is inevitable.
As long as the Internet(s) is run on a structure of private enterprise, bandwith allocation based on payment will be a desired option.
Maintaining (and enhancing) Net Neutrality is worth our efforts, but we need to realize that we will always be on the losing side of this battle until the operation of the Net is socially controlled. In other words, until the Internet(s) is a Res Publica ("Public Thing").
If "(t)he Internet(s)" is really "in the very fabric of how we communicate, learn, shop, conduct business, organize, innovate and engage", then why in the WORLD do we allow it to continue to be a subscription-based for-profit industry?
If it is really true that: "(i)f we lost it, we'd be lost." Then why is it not under the control of social systems as the Highways, Railways, Ports, Schools, and Post Office are?
Why is "telecommunication" a matter only for regulation of private enterprises, but written communication or the physical transportation of persons and goods a matter for society, and therefore, government?
I say that private enteprise with public sponsorship has gone as far as it can with the Internet(s), just as it once did with the Mercantile Colonies that eventually became the Republics ("public things") of the U.S..
-matti.
Exactly. In "The Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith talks about government having a valid role in providing roads, bridges and harbors, all in the furtherance of commerce. If available in his day, he'd add the internet and health care.
Poor Adam Smith. So ofter unread by those that use him as a standard-bearer. He also wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments. But this is conveniently forgotten by the neo-cons and such bottom-crawlers that seek to cloak their actions with Smith's work.
Gary
Government is the people's arm for protecting themselves from injustice and harm. Obviously the people need to ensure it is functioning to do just that, and do it well. It's each citizen's duty then to demand the FCC keeps the information streets open. If we don't, then we may find some day checkpoints on the paved streets, demanding we heed their "authority", shareholder-driven.
If they want something we have they will simply take it.
backwards - they've already taken it, now we have to take it back. What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html
Green Island - first we take back our brains, then we take back our country
That's capitalism, comrades!
Is this "Red-Baiting"?
Tell me, what is 1952 like, really?
Why would they be doing this? Limited bandwidth?
Capitalists are not about making the transfer of goods and services easier, or more efficient. They are about owning the spicket (or stealing, with the help of our legislators), and artificially increasing the value of what comes out of it by restricting access to it. That is capitalism. Exclusion, and artificially created shortages. Enron did the same thing to California.
The Internet is the free press now. It's our public utility. Suddenly freedom of the press is allowed to those who register under pseudonyms.
I'm getting tired of this song and dance. Why is it that every few years we have to go through the motions of telling our corrupt representatives that we WANT internet neutrality and that the corporations, the service providers should not interfere?
Why can't we get an amendment passed that will guarantee net neutrality for generations to come?
If we lose the freedom to get our news, buy our goods, sell goods and publish our work we will have to go back to consuming the propaganda on TV and in newspapers and entire countries and populations will be easily duped and deceived by whichever authority happens to be in control. It will be like the 50s with the red scare, except the propaganda will be unparalleled.
What is the proposed solution? I know what the rationale would have to be:bandwidth shortages eaten up by more and more wireless users, blackberries and iphones.
I'm willing to bet their pitch runs along with lines of 'heading off bottle necks' in the future.
The solution is deployment of new technology. Already Internet providers are trying to push 'less productive users' of bandwidth off the playing field.
There has got to be something out there. What?
>>There has got to be something out there. What?<<
Called Internet2 see: http://www.internet2.edu/about and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2
Gary
I went to the website listed in the article and put in my comments. I hope you will all do the same. This was my message:
Imagine if the post office could decide whether, where, how and when to deliver your letters based on their interests, not yours. Allowing the ISPs to decide the content of the Internet and who gets seen, how and when, is very similar. The Internet has amply proven its value to the public. If the FCC has any interest in the public interest, it will solidly back net neutrality for now and for the future.
Do it right now!!
Or not.
UPDATE:
>>More than 13,000 Americans File Comments Asking the FCC to Protect an Open Internet
Small businesses, women's groups, local civil rights leaders also declare support for Net Neutrality
WASHINGTON - January 14 - With the approach of a midnight deadline tonight for comments on the Federal Communications Commission's proposed rules to safeguard the open Internet, thousands of individuals from all walks of life, as well as small businesses, civil rights groups and women's groups, are calling for a strong Net Neutrality rule.
"The public comments leave no doubt that Americans who care about the future of the Internet want strong Net Neutrality rules," said Craig Aaron, senior program director of Free Press, which coordinates the SavetheInternet.com Coalition.
"It's inspiring to read the comments of entrepreneurs and bloggers, ministers and teachers, who all agree that the FCC must keep the Internet open and free from discrimination."
The FCC has received nearly 15,000 comments, the overwhelming majority from those demanding that the FCC craft strong and enforceable Net Neutrality rules without loopholes. To see highlights from these comments, updated throughout the day, go to: http://fccdocket.posterous.com.<<
more at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lavious
Don't tell me this would mean, "bye, bye Common Dreams?"