The end of the open Internet is nigh

Hello there!
From time to time, we at the business desk are pleased to bring you articles
that can help you to deal more effectively and efficiently with the wide
world of technology. If you are struggling to keep up or are a bit lost
when it comes to being able to do things on your own without having to ask
or pay for help then we invite you to read on.
Today we have a great little article for you;
The end of the open Internet is nigh

We hope you find this article useful. Have a great day.
The business desk team
Follow us on Twitter @accessibleworld

+++++++++++++++
A Dan Thompson contribution

The end of the open Internet is nigh

by Info World, May 2014

http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/thanks-tom-wheeler-the-end-of-the-ope
n-internet-nigh-241774

Description: Description: Thanks to Tom Wheeler, the end of the open
Internet is nighWe need a hero to save the Internet in the United States
. I mused that perhaps new FCC Chairman Tom
Wheeler, despite coming out of the industry he now regulates, would have
some kind of crisis of conscience and do what is ever so clearly the right
thing to do: Preserve the open Internet. I didn’t have much hope that this
would be the case, but it was worth a shot.

Sadly, there was no crisis of conscience to be had. Wheeler has stepped
right in line with his telecom lobbyist roots and has proposed something
actually far worse than doing nothing at all. He wants to actively promote a
tiered Internet through a dual fast-lane and slow-lane approach. This is no
form of regulation or control over an increasingly monopolistic industry,
this is going the other direction entirely — this is the U.S. government
actively promoting the death of the open Internet.

[ InfoWorld’s Robert X. Cringely
defends the FCC’s Net neutrality
approach, and InfoWorld’s Serdar Yegulalp
explains what’s in
the proposal. Visit this link to check out the proposal.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/net-neutrality/4-no-bull-facts-you-need-know-abou
t-the-fccs-net-neutrality-proposal-241338?source=fssr

Pick up expert networking how-to advice from InfoWorld’s

Networking Deep Dive PDF special report

Found here;


http://www.infoworld.com/d/networking/download-the-networking-deep-dive-repo
rt-507?source=ifwelg_fssr

and
Technology: Networking newsletter, found here:

http://www.infoworld.com/newsletters/subscribe?showlist=infoworld_network
&source=ifwelg_fssr

All of these sources provide much more information regarding the closed
internet that is proposed.

There isn’t language strong enough to fully register my displeasure with
Wheeler’s proposal

and with Wheeler himself. The FCC’s previous chairman, Julius Genachowski,
was not effective enough to land true Net neutrality regulations, but he did
at least try, and his position on the matter was aligned more with reality
and sanity. Wheeler’s position is aligned directly with the interests of the
very communications industry that he is supposed to be regulating. And these
corrupting interests are just so outrageously blatant — they truly don’t
even care to hide it anymore.

To state this plainly, we have given the big communications companies
literally billions of dollars in taxpayer money over the past few decades to
build massive networks. Not only have they repaid none of that, but they are
consolidating control over the Internet and charging ever-higher prices for
mediocre services. At the same time, they are succeeding in removing any
sort of regulation over their industry, and they are pocketing massive sums
of money rather than improving and extending their networks — their profit
margins are much higher
than in most other industries, in fact.

They’re winning. They are winning, and their goal is to turn the open
Internet into AOL, with themselves as the gatekeepers. Preventing such
outcomes is why the government’s authority over the airwaves and telecom
utilities exists in the form of licenses and communications regulations.
They are designed to prevent a few providers from controlling the playing
field.

But what we are looking at now is a complete abdication of that
responsibility by the U.S. government, through the very office designed to
prevent such things, as well as through Congress and local governments.

Public opinion on this matter is muddled at best. Heavy spin by various
interest groups
has destroyed the actual meaning of the term
“Net neutrality,” leading some people to believe that it’s the exact
opposite of its actual definition. Others don’t think it’s a big deal or
don’t understand anything about it.

It’d be simpler and easier for lay people to digest if we refer to this
whole mess as the open Internet versus the closed Internet.

We have enjoyed an open Internet since its creation, but Comcast, Time
Warner, Verizon, and AT&T want a closed Internet. They want to enforce their
own decisions about what people read, see, and hear on the Internet — not
so much about the content itself but the maximum price they can get for it.
They want to get paid coming and going
, by both content producers and
content consumers, funneling all of that traffic through circuits paid for
in large part by the very taxpayers who are also their customers. This isn’t
business, this is just bald-faced extortion and double-dealing.

Back in his 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama appeared
to grasp the threat of a closed Internet , saying
that companies like Google and Facebook “might not have been started if you
had not had a level playing field for whomever’s got the best idea, and I
want to maintain that basic principle in how the Internet functions.” He
said Internet service providers should not “charge different rates to
different websites” because that “destroys one of the best things about the
Internet.” More damning, he also said that he would “make sure that that’s
the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward.”

It’s more than abundantly clear that Wheeler, Obama’s current FCC chairman,
is trying to do the opposite. We all know how fragile campaign promises are,
but the future of the U.S. and by extension the world rests on this
decision. That’s no exaggeration: We are at the cusp of a massive change in
how we perceive freedom of information and freedom of ideas. We are about to
ensure our continued technological, financial, and societal progress — or
actively destroy it.

Wheeler is on the side of those destroying it. After seeing his proposal, I
believe that he should step down from his position or be replaced if he
refuses. It’s clear that he is not at all suitable for his job.

This story, “

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.