Net Neutrality: Watch "The Net at Risk" - WGBH Broadcast 10/18, 9:00PM

I guess I am a little confused on the issue at stake here in terms of 'Net Neutrality' Is this an issue of censorship i.e. people are concerned if big media gets ownership of the internet, there will be restrictions on such things as blogs etc. or is it an issue simply of big corporations gaining ownership of something many believe is un-ownable?

If we're talking about censorship and concerned that the free exchange of ideas via the internet could potentially turn into the likes of cable television and radio then it is my belief we are walking a thin line. (If this has nothing to do with the topic then disregard the rest of this) Do I think the censorship on TV and radio is necessarily bad? No, but I think it is a little too conservative and we are slowly moving in the direction of European tv where nudity, language, and content reign relatively free. But both are controlled to a certain extent, for example you wouldn't see an underaged child engaged in sexual behavior. However, on the internet you can virtually say and show what you want, when you want, and in the manner you want.

I have listened to this issue beaten to death on talk radio and a prime example of the dangers of a completely free internet are such appalling websites like the Man Boy Love Association which I believe was shut down a couple months ago for obvious reasons. This site was beyond sick... it gave advice on how to seduce little boys and a bunch and stuff i'd rather not know about. Now clearly no one in their right mind wants a website that supports the raping of young boys, but my question is does this website fall under the umbrella of "Net Neutrality"? As sick as the website is, It's still free speech. But where do we draw the line? How can we regulate the internet so websites like these don't survive?

I am in full support of being able to voice an opinion via blogs etc. Even if its an opinion i completely disagree with. that's what's great about living in America. But the internet is difficult because it knows no borders and where eating a dog in China is socially and legally acceptable, PETA would go nuts over a website that has the best ways to grill bowser.

Posted by RossL at 10/15/06 09:55:02

Think about the effects of an organization that can control what information we see and how quickly we see it. This is the basis of the "Net Nuetrality" movement. If many of the large telecom industries have their way they will charge fees to the websites in order to send their wares over the internet because the telecom industries "own" the means of transmission. (i.e telephone, cable lines) This means that a compnay like Yahoo! will have to pay in order to have its website traffic continue as it has. If a smaller website that cannot afford to pay the fee then the company can slow its traffic down or even prevent traffic from going to the site.
You can also think about this as it relates to Foxnews and our discussions in the class. If Foxnews disagrees with something it simply doesn't report on it. A similar thing could happen, if the telecom company disagrees with things on the website then they can just prevent traffic on its network from going to that site. It is plainly a form of censorship without allowing the public its reaction or choice.

Posted by JamesB at 10/16/06 12:44:01

Ross, thanks for the being the first to post. I had an eloquent response all prepared but my browser crashed before I submitted it. I lost it all. But, James has wonderfully stated what I had planned: those who own the "pipes" will also try to control the "content."

We all lose if Net Neutrality is not passed in Congress: most importantly, our one sliver of democratic media.

Posted by Liz at 10/17/06 14:37:07

The Interviewer stated that telephone and cable companies wouldn’t block anything on the internet. He then posed the question, “Do you think that’s true?” One woman responded by saying, ‘if that really how they feel they should come out and put that into law. I agree. Frankly, huge media companies and conglomerates will bullshit as required to get what they want. I don’t trust them as far as I could throw them; I want it in writing.

One person in the video commented on how they’re worried about a potential, hypothetic problem, how it hasn’t happened yet. But it has – the bill that they wanted to pass with the amendments that would limit net neutrality proves that. I’m glad that the women and other activists like them are sending out alerts and warning the public about these issues. The internet gives us so much freedom and the potential for human progress is really augmented by it. If it changes and is considerably altered by major censorship, then this new and wonderful freedom and learning tool we posses will be a thing of the past.

I do, however, agree with Ross that some censorship is required. I too, have no desire to learn how to “seduce” little boys. And frankly, I think having that kind of information readily available will just increase the likelihood of a growing population of people with “sick” and “twisted” views. YUCK!!!

Relating to what James was saying, the idea of charging websites fees to maintain their website traffic, charging for the use of transmission waves, is a little over the top. It would be especially hard for small business, a sector which has grown immensely b/c of the Internet.

Posted by ElaineC at 04/10/07 03:54:13