Have you been on the internet in the last day or two?
A trick question, right, given that you are reading this on the internet right now? But that's my point, really: "the internet." I think it needs to be capitalized. "The Internet."
Not "AT&T's Internet." Not the "Official Internet," or "NYT Internet," or "Internet by Fox." This is critically important, and under severe threat. The true power of The Internet lies in the fact that it is universal and not subject to the goals of any corporation or government.
This is about access to information. Access to the good and bad, truth and lies, accurate and false, valuable and worthless. Access that does not belong to anyone, and needs to stay that way or we lose something more valuable than can be calculated.
Threats come from Verizon, and AT&T. How? Because they own your mobile access point to the internet and want control. You can't just buy a phone and use it as you want. You must buy their phone, and they have disabled certain functions and added others you know nothing about. You can't change those functions, either, you don't have the freedom to do so.
Cable companies, too. They have limited who sees what at what speed.
The day is coming when these companies will only display search results from companies that pay a fee. Better yet, from companies they own or control. They will display news only from their favored political party.
Thomas Jefferson advocated for freedom of the press even as he was being savaged by the merciless press of his time. That is why we have the First Amendment. In our electronic age, that freedom is threatened both by governments and corporations, by those who would limit our access to information as if in an earlier age they wished to control which newspapers could be published, which books would be read, who spoke to whom.
Access needs champions, in Congress and in the streets, Republican and Democrat, willing to advocate for freedom, freedom of information, internet freedom and freedom of access.
If "The Internet" is fragmented into Verizon's Internet, Comcast's Internet, Democrats Internet, or access is controlled, there is less hope for emergence of "truth." This is the weapon of dictators and oligarchs around the world and has been long before the days of Nazi and Communist propaganda machines.
Who controls "truth?" Almost by definition, no one, truth must fight falsehood everywhere. That is how it should be. But if the battlefield is fragmented, it takes truth much longer to win.
That is why there must be "The Internet," and equal access must be guaranteed. Then information will fulfill the powerful role Jefferson envisioned, his "market place of ideas" will eventually reveal truth, bad ideas will fade (to be replaced by others), good ideas will endure. It is crucial for democracy as well as a free market economy.
This is not about providing a certain service, it is about inalienable rights. This is not about buying ice cream, it is about finding water. There is a role for government in protecting rights, and this is one of the most fundamental of rights. It is the well-spring of our freedoms.
Threats to the internet are threats to our internet, broadcast over our spectrum, by companies under supervision by our government.
Don't tread on me.
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Rep. Boehner to sell highways
House Speaker John A. Boehner wants to sell key U.S. highways to private interests that contributed to his reelection campaign.
Interstate 5 from Mexico to Canada would be cut into four sections and "privatized." The first section would run from Mexico through Los Angeles; the second from Los Angeles to Redding, Californa; the third from Redding to Portland, Oregon, and the last from Portland to the Canadian border.
"The sale of this underutilized asset will help with the deficit," Boehner said. "Private enterprise will do a better job."
"Transportation is under attack from both state and federal governments," Boehner said. "These bureaucrats have never set foot in a car factory, and many of them don't even like to drive."
Boehner also says the new owners of the blacktop should be able to set separate speed limits for individual vehicles. The proposal would allow Transport Inc. to "sell" higher speeds to the drivers of BMWs and Mercedes, while limiting the speeds of vehicles from other manufacturers. The same would be true of larger vehicles, such as trucks.
Some independent truckers have worried that the owners of Transport Inc., which has put in a bid for the Oregon section of the interstate, also own trucking companies. They say that Transport Inc. could set higher speed limits for their own trucks, or even limit the number of competing trucks from smaller companies.
"There are other highways if they choose to use them," Boehner said of those concerns.
He also said these complaints actually come from regulators in Washington who oppose the free market. “We see this threat in how the (govt.) is creeping further into the free market by trying to regulate the highway system,” Mr. Boehner said.
The idea that competition might actually be reduced by monopoly ownership of I5, constructed largely with federal highway dollars, did not concern the Republican.
“The last thing we need, in my view, is the US Department of Transportation serving as traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over trucking companies who have been serving their communities with transportation for decades,” he said to loud applause.
For more on Boehner's remarks, see this.
Interstate 5 from Mexico to Canada would be cut into four sections and "privatized." The first section would run from Mexico through Los Angeles; the second from Los Angeles to Redding, Californa; the third from Redding to Portland, Oregon, and the last from Portland to the Canadian border.
"The sale of this underutilized asset will help with the deficit," Boehner said. "Private enterprise will do a better job."
"Transportation is under attack from both state and federal governments," Boehner said. "These bureaucrats have never set foot in a car factory, and many of them don't even like to drive."
Boehner also says the new owners of the blacktop should be able to set separate speed limits for individual vehicles. The proposal would allow Transport Inc. to "sell" higher speeds to the drivers of BMWs and Mercedes, while limiting the speeds of vehicles from other manufacturers. The same would be true of larger vehicles, such as trucks.
Some independent truckers have worried that the owners of Transport Inc., which has put in a bid for the Oregon section of the interstate, also own trucking companies. They say that Transport Inc. could set higher speed limits for their own trucks, or even limit the number of competing trucks from smaller companies.
"There are other highways if they choose to use them," Boehner said of those concerns.
He also said these complaints actually come from regulators in Washington who oppose the free market. “We see this threat in how the (govt.) is creeping further into the free market by trying to regulate the highway system,” Mr. Boehner said.
The idea that competition might actually be reduced by monopoly ownership of I5, constructed largely with federal highway dollars, did not concern the Republican.
“The last thing we need, in my view, is the US Department of Transportation serving as traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over trucking companies who have been serving their communities with transportation for decades,” he said to loud applause.
For more on Boehner's remarks, see this.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Net neutrality and Republican pandering
It appears that Republican knee-jerk support of giant corporations over the rights of ordinary people remains intact.
In an article from BBC News (read it here), it was noted that six Republican senators have introduced legislation to punish the Federal Communications Commission for keeping oligopolies from choking off access to the Internet.
Oh, they dress it up. They say there is no apparent problem.
Yeah, there is no apparent problem when the door is open and the horses are still in the barn. There is no apparent problem because the handful of companies which own mobile access to the Internet haven't yet figured out how to turn their oligopoly into a powerful force.
It is as if three or four companies owned all the interstate highways in America. They get to decide who gets on, how fast everyone should go, and perhaps they charge their friends less than they charge the average driver. Which enriches their friends, who kick back money to the highway owner, who then buys himself a politician, who resists any attempt to make sure everyone can drive on the roads.
Folks, regulation is not by itself a bad thing. Monopolistic oil companies had to be broken up. AT&T had to be broken up. Once you could only buy a telephone from AT&T. A good argument can be made that much of the innovation we saw in communication was due to the competition caused by the break up of AT&T.
Don't equate corporate pandering by the Republican Party with being pro business. Regulation can assist business when it fosters competition by preventing a concentration of power in the hands of a few.
Greed and power will always exist, and one role of government is to make sure that consumers and businesses get a level playing field.
In an article from BBC News (read it here), it was noted that six Republican senators have introduced legislation to punish the Federal Communications Commission for keeping oligopolies from choking off access to the Internet.
Oh, they dress it up. They say there is no apparent problem.
Yeah, there is no apparent problem when the door is open and the horses are still in the barn. There is no apparent problem because the handful of companies which own mobile access to the Internet haven't yet figured out how to turn their oligopoly into a powerful force.
It is as if three or four companies owned all the interstate highways in America. They get to decide who gets on, how fast everyone should go, and perhaps they charge their friends less than they charge the average driver. Which enriches their friends, who kick back money to the highway owner, who then buys himself a politician, who resists any attempt to make sure everyone can drive on the roads.
Folks, regulation is not by itself a bad thing. Monopolistic oil companies had to be broken up. AT&T had to be broken up. Once you could only buy a telephone from AT&T. A good argument can be made that much of the innovation we saw in communication was due to the competition caused by the break up of AT&T.
Don't equate corporate pandering by the Republican Party with being pro business. Regulation can assist business when it fosters competition by preventing a concentration of power in the hands of a few.
Greed and power will always exist, and one role of government is to make sure that consumers and businesses get a level playing field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)