Weird but True......

Net Neutrality can't get weirder than this. Take a peek.

Where net neutrality began

Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School, first used the term “net neutrality” in the early 2000s in one of his papers. He describes net neutrality, more properly known as network neutrality, as “information networks are often more valuable when they are less specialized – when they are a multiple platform for multiple uses…” He states that “a neutral network should be expected to deliver the most to a nation and the world economically, by serving as an innovation platform, and socially, by facilitating the widest variety of interactions between people.” So obviously, he is for net neutrality. Most websites that I have visited think that Tim Wu just made up the term net neutrality to make him more money. Later in the article he tells of net neutrality’s origin, when people were worried when cable companies combined with ISPs. Some remedies were anti-discrimination laws, and to allow users to choose their ISPs. Wu then states some problems that might come up on the internet such as blocking, termination monopoly pricing, violations of playing favorite networks – where carriers offer preferred treatment to one application over another, and transparency failures – where carriers fail to tell customers and application directors what they know. There are several more articles linked on his website and this page. These articles might be brought up in future blogs. I just wanted to let the populous know that Tim Wu first came up with the term “net neutrality.”

FCC article

Here is a Progress Snapshot from the FCC released December 2006 entitled Net Neutrality and the Role of States. The US Supreme's Court deicision, Brand X, and Orders from the FCC have declared that broadband Internet services are informational services and immune from state regulations. Basically, Federal laws would block any State laws on net neutrality. Both Missouri and Minnesota have tried to regulate broadband services with net neutrality but have failed. This article is basically opposing net neutrality. So is Big Ed's Swan Song right? Does it only matter how much companies contribute to campaigns and they get to call the shots? Looks like there will never be any federal laws made for net neutrality.

Big Ed's Swan Song

Here is a video that Lillian found. It's AT&T's view on net neutrality. Very interesting and entertaining.

Ninjas Need the Net Too!

For those of you who are concerned about the future of the internet, we have a very special speaker here to inform you about the dangers of corporate interference in congress.

And now, without further ado, "Ask a Ninja".

Verizon Ends Text Message Ban

Here's an example of how Verizon Wireless, the nation's second-largest wireless carrier was trying to control the internet. In this case, they were trying to bar an abortion-rights group from sending text messages to its subscribers. The only reason why they stopped is because they got caught and received criticism for it. Imagine the other information they're blocking, but haven't gotten caught yet.

The End of the Internet?

What would happen if telephone and cable companies ran the Internet's broadband? This hasn't happen yet in the U.S. But it's worth considering for the future.

Here's an article about what might happen to free Internet if phone and cable companies took total control of it with reduced government regulation.

How would you like it if phone and cable companies charged you for everything that you wanted to download from the Web. I would be disappointed and upset if these companies charged me for every single little thing I wanted to use over the Web. Definitely, I couldn't afford to pay for everything I wanted to download off the Internet. I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of net neutrality. I want it to be kept that way so that everyone can have free access to all the information that's available on the World Wide Web.