Net Neutrality gone sour

There are Rumblings that the big players of the Internets ‘level playing field’ are about to tip it to their favour…

Recently I reported on MSC of numerous blogs being forcibly shut down. Now Piration has reported mainstream media slanting the view of bloggers in general, whilst he also gave a passionate review of the situation. So it seems fitting to report on the recent developments of Net Neutrality.

The internet is new, wonderful and shiny. Or at least it was. For many it has now become a staple need and there is even talk of ‘a human right to have access’ to it… but access to what exactly?

For those who read theses posts the internet has probably become a metaphor for information. In truth it is not more than a bunch of wires with abstract bits and bytes – it is the terminal where that information is assembled that allows us our internet experience.

Net neutrality stood for the ideal that wherever you were you could have equal access to this data and its combined experience… Unfortunately this has always been a form of doublespeak. It’s very difficult to experience a HD movie if your ‘terminal’ is an old PC with poor connection, regardless of ones patience – let alone for those in the world still without electric. Yet like the American constitution it has set a benchmark of standards which can be aspired to.

In April this year The New York Times reported that:-
A federal appeals court ruled that regulators had limited power over Web traffic under current law.
This simple statement confirmed the frailty of Net Neutrality – essentially saying that it is nothing more than an idea and not enforcable in Law. Meaning there are no legal restrictions on companies restricting the flow of data over the internet. This leaves only ‘simple’ moral hurdles for the corporations to overcome. [making Piration's post even more relevant].

So what of the latest news? According to The New York Times [NYT again? - coincidence..?]
Google and Verizon have been in talks to introduce a tiered system into the web. Google of course denied this quickly (as they have long pledged support of Net Neutrality) but interestingly the story has turned into a table tennis match of words with The New York Times latest statement reading:- “We stand by our reporting which is based on information from sources in a position to know about the conversations.”

So we will have to see where this leads – From reports of bloggers mentioned in the same sentence as terrorists and conspiracy theorists… The war for our minds goes on [why does it always have to be a war – or should that phrase now be classed as an Americanism...?]. However I feel the internets downfall (from its potential glory of free information planet wide) is more likely to come about by those who find its ‘shininess’ the most attractive. Those drifting from TV to ‘internet TV’ with large HD screens and sound systems that deafen the sound of the ringing tills it took to buy them with.

These people are the mass consumers, not of information but of product. In their desire (addiction?) for an ever more glitter they will ask for their own internet to be limited (censored) in return for faster downloads. They will even pay for the ‘privilege’…
A fast food generation asking for ‘quick fix’ entertainment.