Pittsburgh: Time to Make the Internet Open and Available to Everyone
July 22nd, 2008 by tkarrThe Federal Communications Commission needs to help keep the Internet free of corporate gatekeepers and available to every American, witnesses and the public told the agency’s five commissioners at a hearing last night in Pittsburgh.
“I believe so strongly in an open internet for everyone,” said Rep. Mike Doyle, who was instrumental in organizing the hearing. “That’s why, as Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I’ve been working to develop federal policies that keep the Internet open.”
Adelstein: Don’t let old media control the Internet
|
Doyle said the hearing should address two leading concerns: bridging the “digital divide” so that all Americans “can compete in a global economy,” and Net Neutrality — preventing Internet gatekeepers from filtering, blocking or spying on legal content.
Not Another Version of Old Media
“Consumers don’t want the Internet to become another version of old media — dominated by a handful of companies. They want choice,” FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein told the more than 250 people in attendance Monday night.
Adelstein spoke about the increasing use of video by millions of people, pointing to the popularity of YouTube and other online video services.
“The FCC needs to continue to promote bandwidth capacity to make the next generation of using the Internet possible,” he said.
To get there, Adelstein and others have been pushing for a national broadband plan that involves private-public partnerships to “incentivise this build out and make sure that our networks are open and neutral.”
No Gatekeepers
The FCC should take immediate action against network providers that block or filter access to online applications, said Marge Krueger of the Communications Workers of America.
Earlier this month FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced his intention to take action against cable giant Comcast for illegally violating Net Neutrality, after a coalition of Net users and activists caught the cable giant blocking open access to the Internet.
And just last week, bipartisan members of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet blasted companies like NebuAd that seek to work with ISPs to spy on user’s Internet activity without first seeking consent.
CWA’s Krueger joined other speakers and members of the audience in calling for a comprehensive broadband policy that would help restore America’s flagging leadership in broadband services and availability
The Dimensions of the Divide
America’s digital divide is delineated by class, location and race. Only 35 percent of American homes with less than $50,000 in annual income have broadband, according to the Census Bureau, while 76 percent of households earning more than $50,000 per year are connected.
Meanwhile nearly 20 million Americans live in areas not served by a single broadband provider, while tens of millions more live in places with just a single source for high-speed Internet. Just 39 percent of rural households subscribe to broadband service, compared to 54 percent of urban dwellers.
Finally, only 40 percent of minority households subscribe to broadband, while 55 percent of non-Hispanic white households are connected.
“We need specialized policies and technologies that target those underserved regions” said Professor Rahul Tongia of Carnegie Mellon University. Tongia pointed to the need for changes in laws on “white spaces” and “open access” to get more people connected in regions that are still off the grid.
Broadband a ‘Civil Right’
Commissioner Michael Copps said he found it hard to believe that people were still arguing against a comprehensive broadband policy for universal and open access.
“I am unaware of any infrastructure build out in the history of this country that hasn’t been accomplished without a public or private sector partnership and a national strategy … to get broadband out to all of its people,” Copps said.
“I think it’s a civil right; I really do,” he said. “The need to chart a path to the realization of that right is why we’re here today.”
“And we’re still sitting here saying, ‘Should there be a strategy?’ ”
(Photo Courtesy of Jake Warga, Flickr)
July 24th, 2008 at 11:23 am
This is great progress and I think that I can help.
I am part of a new campaign to switch to the first Telecom to take the Net Neutrality Pledge. It is a new type of campaign because people can join the campaign without switching but once the first Telecom takes the Pledge (as long as they provide service in your area) then all the members will switch. If you’re interested check it out here: http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/first-telecom-to-take-the-net-neutrality-pledge-wins-our-business
Thanks and we want to help the spread the word about keeping an open internet.
July 25th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Pittsburgh: Time to Make the Internet Open and Available to Everyone…
The Federal Communications Commission needs to help keep the Internet free of corporate gatekeepers and available to every American, witnesses and the public told the agency’s five commissioners at a hearing last night in Pittsburgh.
“I believe so s…
July 25th, 2008 at 8:38 am
I’m losing my apt and computer access for a while and I started wondering about the economy and how many other Americans are going through similar difficulties.
I know this may sound far-fetched and paranoid, but Rumsfeld and all the other corporate Bushites appear to think that a free internet is one of their worst enemies or enemies tools. Now take a look at the economy and ask the question: “How many Americans have lost computer or internet access and how many more will lose it due to losses of income in the next few years?”
So my latest paranoid conspiracy theory suggest that if the economic crisis that is hurting so many Americans at this time is something caused by corporate design, isn’t it also possible that they planned it in such a way as to make computer and/or internet access for the average working and middle-class American more of a luxury item and privilege that would be too expensive or simply unavailable to most of them?
I mean to say, the point is, if computer and internet access became much less available to avergae Americans, due to lower incomes, couldn’t that put much of middle and lower-class America back in the 40s and 50s, where they would have to rely more on local newspapers and corporate propaganda for all their information?
I’d be interested to know how many Americans hurt by the economic crisis have lost computer and internet access in the past couple of years.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Those of us who owned home computers in the early 1990’s thrilled to rapidly advancing wonders of a technology which exploded into today’s digital revolution. The future progress of this revolution is threatened today by its very success, corporate America having become involved in pursuit of its own commercial interests.
Our present screed is not an attack on capitalism. The profit motive resulted in rapid dissemination of huge technological advances and introduced wonders of a new personal computer age to millions of persons. Our present concerns, however, provide an example, as well as a warning, of dangers created when the corporate world, despite its efficiency, succeeds in monopolizing avenues indispensable to the free-flow of human creativity.
The future of the Internet brings us face to face with interesting practical and ideological considerations. As in many areas, a conflict arises between free market policy in a world of corporations and a public interest to be protected by regulatory involvement — laws and control by the State. Each of us must now examine the issues and express her views. Failure to do so may result in losses to us all of further technological advances and of yet to be imagined wonders possible in the coming years. How I wish I had known in 1994 what my hobby would become in only ten years! Of course, I would have registered dozens of cool domain names (after all, we picked them up free at the time).
For several years, the ISP (Internet Service Provider) business, often run on a geek’s computer located in his basement or garage, provided computer owners access to each other’s machines by means of one or more telephone numbers. Prior to Internet interface there were a number of separate and unconnected so-called “online services” including CompuServe, Genii, Dephi, AOL and Prodigy and there were hundreds of local “bulletin boards” containing (among other things) wonderful utility files created to broaden the computer’s operations in a DOS environment. Ah, the good old days!
To begin with, we knew that it was bound to happen. Even after the online services interfaced with the Internet and were thereby able to exchange emails, and as long as access to the new medium was diversified, censorship and control was problematical. However, after the telephone companies and cable TV companies replaced the local ISP’s in providing access, censorship and control would inevitably become an issue.
By centralizing and owning the pipelines, these corporations acquire the means to control its content and technology. Again, we knew that this day would come. We also knew that we would be faced with a paradox. On the one hand, we would argue for freedom from internet controls and, on the other hand, we would seek regulatory controls to prohibit telephone and cable companies from interfering with “our” new medium.
To my way of thinking, the decision is clear. We must prevent these corporations from interfering in any way whatsoever with content, as well as with developing technology created in the digital revolution. Content may threaten certain individuals’ sensibilities. Developing technology may threaten certain vested commercial interests.
In the past century we have witnessed horrible and tragic events resulting from having populations of national states governed by political henchmen of corporate commercial interests. That is the inevitable result of governmental support of powerful financial interests in lieu of other human values. Net neutrality provides a microcosm of this fundamental problem. Today it is, perhaps, its most important aspect.
The Internet must be left free to develop in its own way, just as populations must be left free to develop in their own ways. It is the Internet that brings to mankind the potential to communicate freely across national borders and the hope for a world united in peace, tolerant of differences, and indifferent to corporate balance sheets.