"The National Franchise Proposal" It's the end of the internet as we know it, and we feel fine....or do we?

In today's world, most mediums of communication are controlled by major corporations.  Telephone services, radio broadcasts, cable, regular and even satelliate TV all come from one or another 'huge' name in the business.  The little guy is gone, no longer does the local news reporter work for the local news station, today's it's fox news or fisher broadcasting.  No longer can the solitary voice be heard--unless you turn on a computer and log onto the internet.  Today 60% of all internet sites are controlled by individuals rather than corporations and internet news, blogging and podcasts have turned the medium into the most expansive and viable source of political and news worthy information in the world.  What is the basis for all this freedom?  For the development of this 'superhighway' if information?  Network Nuetrality--the same concept that is under fire on captial hill right now, and may or may not survive tbe battle.

Network nuetrality.  A word that means little to many of us, but to the geeks and computer freaks of the world it is the world.  It is a relatively simple concept.  All information on a network, or connected series of networks must be 'treated equally' as it were--move at the same speed through the wires.  In other words no picking and choosing what pops up first.  It is the concept that has made the internet into the vast information superhighway that it is--information is shared between users, there are no road blocks (except in China) and there are no fees, bridges or bypasses.  The world wide web was designed that way.  Yet thanks to the FCC's removal of several key administrative rules that prohibited internet service providers the right to discriminate between websites--that information superhighway may be starting to fall apart---in fact without the protection of congress, it will.

"The National Franchise Proposal" has passed in the house and is on it's way to the senate right now.  In addition to attempting to open up the television market (especially cable) to smaller companies this bill also holds an adendum that seeks to protect the idea of net neutrality.  Fining companies that fail to provide equal wire space to all websites up to 500,000$ for a first time infringement.   What would  constitute an infringement?  The idea of charging  people different rates to recieve different 'speeds' of internet.  Not literal speeds (such as those provided by DSL, etc.) but, say Google, would have to pay AOL a certain fee every year to ensure that Google 'fit' into AOL's 'pipes'.  The question is, will that adendum be enough to protect the internet?  Or is it simply a carrot to appease worried minds and to ensure a bill that has internet service providers and media giants both apprehensive and excited pass?

One possible answer can be found by looking at the basis behind the internet as it is today.  The free sharing of any information.  That is what gives the internet both it's power and it's draw.  Without that freedom, the internet becomes nothing but another arena for the largescale media to dominate.  One thing is sure however, if congress fails to protect the internet it will be up to the hundreds of millions of people who utilize the internet every day to find some new way, some innovation to protect they only part of modern society that is, perhaps truly free.

~CallieV