…or: How the U.S. internet providers can keep the competition down, and keep us in the dark.
Comcast internet service, one of the largest providers in the U.S. is accused of using it’s practically unopposed status to limit or hinder what net based media contest it’s subscribers view, one of many subjects discussed in a hearing that took place on monday.
The hearing brings to the public the subject of “Net Neutrality” which has been a widely discussed topic in knowledgable net-surfer circles, but for the majority of basic internet users remains at best a heard phrase that means very little to their daily lives.
The last time this topic was even loosely touched upon was in 2007 when Pearl Jam, performing at Lollapalooza and broadcasting live online, saw a portion of their song “Daughter” which broke into the music of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall, but featured lyrics speaking out against President Bush, and provider AT&T cut the audio to the broadcast, leaving fans and band furious. AT&T claimed it was an overzealous censor acting too quickly and had nothing to do with the political statement being made.
At present Comcast is claiming their slowing of service to IPs who are downloading heavily from forums such as BitTorrent, and other peer to peer services, has to do with regluating bandwidth, and nothing to do with keeping people from gaining their media in anyway other than Comcast affiliated media outlets. Of course, if Comcast is just trying to make sure it’s users are getting the best all-around service possible, and there’s no censorship or blockading of any kind happening on their part- then why did they have to pay people to sit in on this FCC hearing and be pro-Comcast?
David Weinberger says it all considerably better than I ever could-
The idea behind Net neutrality is simple: Decisions about what information should move over the Internet most expeditiously should not be made by those who benefit financially from those decisions. The companies that provide the bulk of the nation’s Internet connectivity should not be allowed to decide that, for example, YouTube videos are less important than their own Hollywood blockbusters. They should not be allowed to skew the market in favor of large companies by charging for delivering their bits faster than those of a start-up. Net neutrality is basic to keeping the Internet the greatest seedbed of innovation in history.
(This) is a struggle between two visions of the Internet.
Comcast and the other major Internet access providers see the Internet as a way to broadcast content to users. Its value comes from what is on the Net. This suits the providers, who come from the world of telephones and cable TV, and are structured to make money by selling content and services to subscribers.
The other vision, and the one that has brought a billion people onto the Net and has stirred hope around the world, says the value of the Net comes from who is on the Net. The “who” isn’t a solitary face; the “who” is us, together. The most exciting developments on the Internet have been about how we are connecting with one another, touching one another, and building ideas, services, and new social forms together.
I for one hope the FCC, and the U.S. at large decides the fate of the net rests in the second choice.
An interesting tack-on to this story, is what’s been happening recently in Pakistan with their net service…
Service on Google Inc.’s YouTube Web site was disrupted around the world for several hours Sunday after a botched effort by the Pakistani government to block access to a video clip critical of Islam.
The clip in question is about a film being made by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who compares the Quran to “Mein Kampf” saying it’s “a fascist book that incites people to murder”.
So, you know, it’s nice to know that here in the U.S. we just mute video or slow down service for things we don’t agree with, in Pakistan they shut down whole websites the world over. Isn’t it great to live in the “free world”?
Popularity: 3% [?]
Sphere: Related Content

(No Ratings Yet)








