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.

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.

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…

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.