SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Net Neutrality Absolutely Vital to Assuring Progressive Free Speech
Sep 16, 2010
The mass media remains one of the most powerful forces blocking social and economic progress in the 21st century.
It is because of the mass media that tens of millions of Americans are
convinced that budget deficits are more important than the lives ruined
by unemployment, or that Social Security won't be there for them when
they retire. Or that their government's occupation of Afghanistan and
its hundreds of military bases around the world, are protecting the
"national security" of U.S. citizens.
All of these destructive myths -- and many more -- could be dispelled
within a relatively short time if there were a free marketplace of
ideas, instead of the "free press for those who own it" model currently
in place.
Of course, other falsehoods would persist for much longer; ideas, once
widely accepted, can have great inertia. But during the last two decades
the Internet has introduced a degree of competition in the world of
mass communications, which although still quantitatively small, is
nonetheless unprecedented.
An interactive process has been set in motion with the Internet and the
blogosphere acting as a check on the mass media -- sometimes breaking
important news that would otherwise go unnoticed or unreported in
systems with direct censorship such as China and also in limited
democracies like the United States; and sometimes influencing the
journalists who produce the mass media.
This process has the potential for accelerating with the development and
spread of Internet technology, for example to Internet television; and
of course with advances in literacy and education.
This is rare in the history of technology, and especially in the
technology of communications. Almost all prior innovations -- radio,
television and motion pictures -- have mostly made it easier for the few
to control the many -- like pilotless drone military planes.
This progressive contribution of the Internet is reliant on the
principle of "net neutrality": that Internet service providers treat all
packets of data the same. An individual blogger's challenge to The
Washington Post can be downloaded by anyone at the same speed as the
content of the multi-billion dollar corporate newspaper itself.
Intelligent readers can decide for themselves who is correct.
The Federal Communications Commission has been considering what its role
and rules should be for enforcing net neutrality, and in early August
Google and Verizon put forth their own proposal on these issues.
These two big corporations, along with others, are likely to have a
considerable influence on the FCC and Congress, and their proposal has
elicited a torrent of criticism. It exempts wireless and other "online
services" from net neutrality, and has other big loopholes.
There is now a clear and present danger that the road will be paved to a
fragmented Internet where service providers can determine what people
will see on the Web, and carve out a "non-neutral" sector. As Sen. Al
Franken, D-Minn., has noted, defending net neutrality is "the First
Amendment issue of our time."
America's great concentrations of wealth -- more concentrated than at any
time since the 1920s -- already dominate the Internet. But not nearly as
much as they dominate the vast majority of information that Americans
receive from more monopolized info-tainment news outlets such as TV,
radio and what remains of the newspaper industry.
A coalition of organizations including MoveOn.org, Color of Change, Free
Press and Credo Action is calling on Americans to lend a hand and
preserve this one remaining mass medium of free speech and equal rights,
before it is remade in accordance with corporate needs. We the people
need the Internet as we know it is the essential tool in ongoing battle
of ideas.
It is time to fight for it.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Mark Weisbrot
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. His latest book is "Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong about the Global Economy" (2015). He is author of co-author, with Dean Baker, of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (2001).
The mass media remains one of the most powerful forces blocking social and economic progress in the 21st century.
It is because of the mass media that tens of millions of Americans are
convinced that budget deficits are more important than the lives ruined
by unemployment, or that Social Security won't be there for them when
they retire. Or that their government's occupation of Afghanistan and
its hundreds of military bases around the world, are protecting the
"national security" of U.S. citizens.
All of these destructive myths -- and many more -- could be dispelled
within a relatively short time if there were a free marketplace of
ideas, instead of the "free press for those who own it" model currently
in place.
Of course, other falsehoods would persist for much longer; ideas, once
widely accepted, can have great inertia. But during the last two decades
the Internet has introduced a degree of competition in the world of
mass communications, which although still quantitatively small, is
nonetheless unprecedented.
An interactive process has been set in motion with the Internet and the
blogosphere acting as a check on the mass media -- sometimes breaking
important news that would otherwise go unnoticed or unreported in
systems with direct censorship such as China and also in limited
democracies like the United States; and sometimes influencing the
journalists who produce the mass media.
This process has the potential for accelerating with the development and
spread of Internet technology, for example to Internet television; and
of course with advances in literacy and education.
This is rare in the history of technology, and especially in the
technology of communications. Almost all prior innovations -- radio,
television and motion pictures -- have mostly made it easier for the few
to control the many -- like pilotless drone military planes.
This progressive contribution of the Internet is reliant on the
principle of "net neutrality": that Internet service providers treat all
packets of data the same. An individual blogger's challenge to The
Washington Post can be downloaded by anyone at the same speed as the
content of the multi-billion dollar corporate newspaper itself.
Intelligent readers can decide for themselves who is correct.
The Federal Communications Commission has been considering what its role
and rules should be for enforcing net neutrality, and in early August
Google and Verizon put forth their own proposal on these issues.
These two big corporations, along with others, are likely to have a
considerable influence on the FCC and Congress, and their proposal has
elicited a torrent of criticism. It exempts wireless and other "online
services" from net neutrality, and has other big loopholes.
There is now a clear and present danger that the road will be paved to a
fragmented Internet where service providers can determine what people
will see on the Web, and carve out a "non-neutral" sector. As Sen. Al
Franken, D-Minn., has noted, defending net neutrality is "the First
Amendment issue of our time."
America's great concentrations of wealth -- more concentrated than at any
time since the 1920s -- already dominate the Internet. But not nearly as
much as they dominate the vast majority of information that Americans
receive from more monopolized info-tainment news outlets such as TV,
radio and what remains of the newspaper industry.
A coalition of organizations including MoveOn.org, Color of Change, Free
Press and Credo Action is calling on Americans to lend a hand and
preserve this one remaining mass medium of free speech and equal rights,
before it is remade in accordance with corporate needs. We the people
need the Internet as we know it is the essential tool in ongoing battle
of ideas.
It is time to fight for it.
Mark Weisbrot
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. His latest book is "Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong about the Global Economy" (2015). He is author of co-author, with Dean Baker, of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (2001).
The mass media remains one of the most powerful forces blocking social and economic progress in the 21st century.
It is because of the mass media that tens of millions of Americans are
convinced that budget deficits are more important than the lives ruined
by unemployment, or that Social Security won't be there for them when
they retire. Or that their government's occupation of Afghanistan and
its hundreds of military bases around the world, are protecting the
"national security" of U.S. citizens.
All of these destructive myths -- and many more -- could be dispelled
within a relatively short time if there were a free marketplace of
ideas, instead of the "free press for those who own it" model currently
in place.
Of course, other falsehoods would persist for much longer; ideas, once
widely accepted, can have great inertia. But during the last two decades
the Internet has introduced a degree of competition in the world of
mass communications, which although still quantitatively small, is
nonetheless unprecedented.
An interactive process has been set in motion with the Internet and the
blogosphere acting as a check on the mass media -- sometimes breaking
important news that would otherwise go unnoticed or unreported in
systems with direct censorship such as China and also in limited
democracies like the United States; and sometimes influencing the
journalists who produce the mass media.
This process has the potential for accelerating with the development and
spread of Internet technology, for example to Internet television; and
of course with advances in literacy and education.
This is rare in the history of technology, and especially in the
technology of communications. Almost all prior innovations -- radio,
television and motion pictures -- have mostly made it easier for the few
to control the many -- like pilotless drone military planes.
This progressive contribution of the Internet is reliant on the
principle of "net neutrality": that Internet service providers treat all
packets of data the same. An individual blogger's challenge to The
Washington Post can be downloaded by anyone at the same speed as the
content of the multi-billion dollar corporate newspaper itself.
Intelligent readers can decide for themselves who is correct.
The Federal Communications Commission has been considering what its role
and rules should be for enforcing net neutrality, and in early August
Google and Verizon put forth their own proposal on these issues.
These two big corporations, along with others, are likely to have a
considerable influence on the FCC and Congress, and their proposal has
elicited a torrent of criticism. It exempts wireless and other "online
services" from net neutrality, and has other big loopholes.
There is now a clear and present danger that the road will be paved to a
fragmented Internet where service providers can determine what people
will see on the Web, and carve out a "non-neutral" sector. As Sen. Al
Franken, D-Minn., has noted, defending net neutrality is "the First
Amendment issue of our time."
America's great concentrations of wealth -- more concentrated than at any
time since the 1920s -- already dominate the Internet. But not nearly as
much as they dominate the vast majority of information that Americans
receive from more monopolized info-tainment news outlets such as TV,
radio and what remains of the newspaper industry.
A coalition of organizations including MoveOn.org, Color of Change, Free
Press and Credo Action is calling on Americans to lend a hand and
preserve this one remaining mass medium of free speech and equal rights,
before it is remade in accordance with corporate needs. We the people
need the Internet as we know it is the essential tool in ongoing battle
of ideas.
It is time to fight for it.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.