Open Access to the Internet
The Internet was founded and based upon the principle of open access; however, media mergers and the rise of broadband threaten the history of open access. The current trend is toward closed access to the Internet.
Open access is allowing people to browse, transmit and publish content as they want particularly in regards to being able to chose their Internet Service Provider (ISP).
Pat Aufderheide, author of "The Threat to the Net," started his article with a great point about media ownership: "Who owns the Internet? If you think the answer is 'nobody,' you're right - for now. That's why it has been such an astonishing innovation that has flourished so vibrantly as the grassroots."
With the innovation and placement of broadband into more and more Internet users' hands, cable companies are moving to closed access of the Internet. Aufderheide hypothesized and displayed some examples of the movement of the Internet in his 2000 article, but more examples are frequently occurring in the media.
In "The Threat to the Net," Aufderheide said that the AT&T's ISP, Excite@Home, will not allow more than 10 minutes of video sent at a time. This restriction may enable more people to use the Internet at once, but it also restricts people's freedom to publish and access more graphically intense sites.
More recently, Comcast Cable has acknowledged slowing down the connection between file-sharing computers. On Thursday, November 1, consumer groups and legal scholars filed a petition for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to stop Comcast from interfering in its customer's Internet actions including file-sharing.
This movement toward closed access is happening because, as the Media Access Project described, "for years, the FCC has refused to require cable companies to open their networks in the same way that they required the telephone companies to open their networks to the dial-up Internet."
Some communities such as Seattle and Portland, Oregon have fought against the large media companies for open access. Ron Sims, who worked for open access in Seattle, said it's about control of content, freedom of speech and choice.
The Internet was founded and based upon the principle of open access; however, media mergers and the rise of broadband threaten the history of open access. The current trend is toward closed access to the Internet.
Open access is allowing people to browse, transmit and publish content as they want particularly in regards to being able to chose their Internet Service Provider (ISP).
Pat Aufderheide, author of "The Threat to the Net," started his article with a great point about media ownership: "Who owns the Internet? If you think the answer is 'nobody,' you're right - for now. That's why it has been such an astonishing innovation that has flourished so vibrantly as the grassroots."
With the innovation and placement of broadband into more and more Internet users' hands, cable companies are moving to closed access of the Internet. Aufderheide hypothesized and displayed some examples of the movement of the Internet in his 2000 article, but more examples are frequently occurring in the media.
In "The Threat to the Net," Aufderheide said that the AT&T's ISP, Excite@Home, will not allow more than 10 minutes of video sent at a time. This restriction may enable more people to use the Internet at once, but it also restricts people's freedom to publish and access more graphically intense sites.
More recently, Comcast Cable has acknowledged slowing down the connection between file-sharing computers. On Thursday, November 1, consumer groups and legal scholars filed a petition for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to stop Comcast from interfering in its customer's Internet actions including file-sharing.
This movement toward closed access is happening because, as the Media Access Project described, "for years, the FCC has refused to require cable companies to open their networks in the same way that they required the telephone companies to open their networks to the dial-up Internet."
Some communities such as Seattle and Portland, Oregon have fought against the large media companies for open access. Ron Sims, who worked for open access in Seattle, said it's about control of content, freedom of speech and choice.
Other consumer groups have formed such as the Net Neutrality Squad. The goal of the group is to "help keep the Internet's operations fair and unhindered from unreasonable restrictions."
But it is hard to fight against the evil media empires. AT&T told Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten "We hope you have a large legal budget," when he demanded that AT&T allow "nondiscriminatory broadband access."
For Internet users such as myself, it takes reporting interference to consumer groups for backing, to the FCC, complaining to the companies. We even need to try and get legislators involved. In the end it will be worth the struggle because as Aufderheide said, "too many people have sampled an open information system to settle for less."
But it is hard to fight against the evil media empires. AT&T told Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten "We hope you have a large legal budget," when he demanded that AT&T allow "nondiscriminatory broadband access."
For Internet users such as myself, it takes reporting interference to consumer groups for backing, to the FCC, complaining to the companies. We even need to try and get legislators involved. In the end it will be worth the struggle because as Aufderheide said, "too many people have sampled an open information system to settle for less."
No comments:
Post a Comment