Net Neutrality: this is hyper-important!
There is no issue in the media today that affects our free press more than Net Neutrality. Please, PLEASE take a few minutes, watch the video above, and go to the Save the Internet Website and sign the petition.
Most importantly of all, please take a 1/2 hour to write your Congressional representatives to tell them to not even think about putting their hands on the Internet.
The site mentioned above does a much better job explaining the complexities and misinformation that's out there than I do, but the bottom line is that ISP media giants like Comcast, AT&T, etc. are all raising a stink because they are providing Internet content for "free" (in so many words).
DON'T fall for the misinformation - this is just corporate America trying to squeeze more dimes out of the middle class and working poor. What these companies want to do is to charge companies (and possibly even people with personal Websites) to have their sites load faster. What an utter crock of shit.
It doesn't take Alan Greenspan to figure out who that cost will get passed on to, as well. Psst - it's me, you, and the other 300 million Americans who are going to once again pay to line the pockets of these mega media companies...
UNLESS WE PUT A STOP TO IT.
Please, write Congress today, and sign the petition to preserve the Internet as we know it.
Labels: Net Neutrality
posted by RJ at 8:49 PM
1 Comments:
Hello, PECAD, I commented here a few weeks ago but just to remind everyone I work with the hands Off the Internet coalition on this issue.
this is just corporate America trying to squeeze more dimes out of the middle class and working poor. What these companies want to do is to charge companies (and possibly even people with personal Websites) to have their sites load faster. What an utter crock of shit.
You've got the wrong companies. It's the large content providers, Google, Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon, etc. that want to enact net neutrality regulations so that they don't have to help the ISPs pay for the billions needed to upgrade internet infrastructure. Even though they want to provide consumers with high-bandwidth applications and make lots of money off of these services, they don't want to contribute. If they don't help out, the cost will be passed on to consumers.
Not to mention the many negative and perhaps unintended consequences of enacting "net neutrality" legislation like Dorgan-Snowe. As Carnegie Mellon Professor and “Godfather of the Internet” David Farber and Michael Katz, Chief Economist at the FCC during the Clinton Administration, point out,
Network neutrality is supposed to promote continuing Internet innovation by restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the sender's willingness to pay. The problem is that these restrictions would prohibit practices that could increase the value of the Internet for customers.
Traffic management is a prime example. When traffic surges beyond the ability of the network to carry it, something is going to be delayed. When choosing what gets delayed, it makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from, say, a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms and spam.
Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home