Net Neutrality Is Necessary for Free Exchange of Ideas
From City on a Hill Press, February 7, 2008
The magic of the Internet is not lost on us. We are the YouTube generation, cursed with the capabilities of extreme multicrastination.
We surf, we Digg and we blog, all without realizing the ongoing fight for control of the web.
Currently, the Internet is “neutral,” which means that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) cannot prioritize one website over another. According to net neutrality, cityonahillpress.com has just as much right to deliver information to its viewers as the website of the New York Times or of Microsoft. The Internet portrays a true definition of free speech to an extent that our parents could only have dreamed of, but this is being threatened.
In 2005, AT&T suggested allowing some companies to pay for preferential treatment to prioritize access to their web content. After heavy protest, however, this notion fizzled.
But the debate continued when Comcast, which owns the majority of the cable lines for high-speed Internet, began interfering with the activities of its users. In October 2007, the Associated Press discovered that Comcast was actively disrupting peer-to-peer file sharing, particularly the wildly popular BitTorrent. Critics maintain that Comcast wants to disrupt the trade between videos on its lines so that it can prioritize its own video service.
When a public service is forced to compete in a capitalist market, something gets lost in translation. For a comparison, look at the difference between cable news and PBS.
The 24-hour news cycle has taken over on CNN. The network sells ads, and comes up with content that’s interesting enough to capture enough attention to fulfill the goal of every corporation in America: making money. The 24-hour news cycle has destroyed journalism, forcing reporters to find something to fill every minute of every day. As a result we find ourselves watching Britney’s latest debacle on news channels more frequently than world issues or current affairs. Meanwhile PBS takes the time to report a deeper story and the end result is satisfyingly clear.
If independent sites are forced to earn the money it takes for their content to be viewable, it will degrade the quality and integrity of their organization. If corporations dominate the Internet, they will be able to censor news and information as they see fit.
The Internet, like the radio, was hailed as a wondrous technological innovation that allows the little guy to have his voice heard.
Let’s keep it that way.
http://www.freepress.net/news/30221