Internet Freedom
I found TomPaine.com today thanks to Alternet. My Alternet Mix e-mail this morning included an article by Bill Moyers and Scott Fogdall, who is not identified further in the blurb at the bottom of the article. He might be this person, via my Google search. If that's him, he writes some mighty fine kid's poems!
Anyway, Alternet led me to the source of the article, TomPaine.com. I love their banner...
Is "TomPaine.com|mon sense" a great tag line or what? They'll be going in my sidebar.The article is about the net neutrality legislation. I'll confess I don't understand it all that well. My take on it is that corporations in the US want to allow for a two-tier system for internet access...high falootin', high paying customers (read: businesses and wealthy individuals) will have access to a speedier internet. The rest of us, the slugs who've made the internet the place it is today, the individuals, we poor bloggers, will have lesser, slower access to the internet...unless we're willing to fork over the big bucks.
The way I see it, it's no different than the NYT making you pay for their premium subscription in order to access certain articles or columnists or to access their archives.
Sounds like bullshit to me.
The Internet of Tomorrow
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. What better way to stifle dissent in America than to limit access to the internet to the masses? Or is that the point? Although I've never fully grasped the threat, I've proudly worn buttons for the Electronic Freedom Foundation and others on my blogs in the past. I have a "Save the Net" badge, which is where I found that nifty video, here on NOP. It's important we remain free to exchange our ideas openly, without regulation and without having to pay extra for the privilege.
I hope you enjoy TomPaine.com and support a free and open internet for all.
(Don't you know by now you can click many of my pictures to get somewhere interesting or, minimally, related?)
tags: blogging / internet / net neutrality / US politics
posted by Cheryl @ 9:35 AM
4 Comments:
Ahhh yes another one bites the dust. We are having a similar thing here. Everybody is switching to digital tv and top set boxes. This allows you access to better quality tv reception. Just so they can phase out the normal tv we all grew up with. The moral of theis story... if you don't habe money falling out of your arse, you don't get to watch tv. And pay tv is even bloody worse! I for one will NOT be getting a stupid digital tv or topbox until I HAVE to. Why should I pay for something that has always been free?
And now the internet as well. Yep there's no "class distinctions" bein made here peeps. NONE.AT.ALL.
Rich people over here with lightning speed internet. Poor people who actually make the world run.... well you should be workin' not surfin' so get back to work.
Yep it's time I divorced the man I adore. Give up the kids I love so much. Get plastic surgery. Have a labotomy. Go hunting for some rich bloke to marry. Then I can still surf the net and watch free to air tv.
Love Yvonne
I don't think the NY Times comparison is a good one. While I don't like having to pay to read their op-ed page, the fact is that it costs money and time for these writers to create their intellectual property and if they share it for free, that's a bonus for us. However, we pay for newspapers, TV news so where is the difference there?
As for net neutrality, I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition
http://www.handsoff.org/
on the other side of this issue and wanted to share some thoughts from my side if you are interested. As this article highlights,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061020/wr_nm/nortel_dc_2
with the growth of video sharing sites like YouTube and VOIP and IPTV technologies we are running out of bandwidth and the copper infrastructure needs to be upgraded to fiber. While this is currently happening at a cost of billions to the telcos, when completed everyone will have superior service. So why shouldn't a company have the right to pay for a better tier of service, especially a company like Google that uses tons of bandwidth and with the addition of YouTube will want the fastest service for video downloads to it's customers? By putting these big guys on the top tier it speeds up the other tier for everyone else. Nobody gets degraded service; there is just the ability to get better service.
If there should be problems down the road, fine Congress and the FCC aren't going anywhere. But, why craft legislation to address a hypothetical problem?
Probably another innovation you can thank the Howard crew for. The snake.
I hope Justin hits the lottery so he can provide you with fast internet and digital tv himself. You know darn well you could never leave him/them!
Hi Hoti. Thanks for stopping by.
That's a valid point about the intellectual property of the writers. And you have a valid point I hadn't considered. My main concern is the widening gap between the ever-shrinking minority of people who have in this country and those who have not.
As long as service does not suffer for the millions of regular folks who use it then fine. But there should be no impediments put in the way of readily available and reasonable access to what is arguably the most powerful technological advance since fire to the masses of ordinary American citizens.
Thanks for the discourse.
Post a Comment
<< Home