Democrats and Republicans alike seem to have an agenda to implement controls over the internet, from pornography to privacy. Telecommunication subdivisions of US economy are under being scrutinized on state, federal, and international levels. Some people are pushing for increased government control, whereas others, myself and my group included believe that the internet should remain deregulated and free of government control. In the recent past many policy makers were in favor of “hands off the internet!” If government does get involved there will be inadvertent consequences. “Lawmakers should exercise patience and humility in the face of ongoing change, and encourage industry to employ self-regulatory solutions instead of assuming Washington has the answers. Unfortunately, however, the impulse to intervene remains strong for many policymakers.”

It is a well known fact that Web sites collect information about who visits their sites, and then sell that information. Some lawmakers are pushing for regulations that would require online companies and even “main street firms” to disclose the information that they collect and then share, and also permit people to opt against collection and sale of personal information. Author, Michael Lewis, believes “when it comes to companies trafficking in personal information to better target what they try to sell, most people don’t care.” The free flow of information mean that people can get more stuff at a cheaper price. The idea of “privacy” is complicated and so is the relationship between privacy, consumers, and businesses. Federal regulation over personal information in order to more effectively move merchandise will hurt internet commerce and consumers. There will be more negative consequences for small businesses versus larger corporations, whom already have a assembled comprehensive databases (they have the same need to purchase information from websites to the same degree small businesses do.) In the post 9.11 world we live in even Washington seeks access of personal information. The USA Patriot Act allows government to monitor and access citizens emails, something that raises constitutional issues. Why should the whitehouse have regulation over the collection and sale of information to businesses when they themselves do not honor privacy? Businesses are responding to the consumers concerns surrounding privacy. Popular sites now feature privacy policies so that internet users can set their browser to reject the gathering of private information. There are also software tools that allow users to anonymously surf the web or warn then when their information is being collected. All of these privacy protection are further protecting the autonomy of consumers. This seems to be a more constitutional and democratic way of protecting and ensuring internet privacy than government regulations.

Government efforts to control content on the Internet can give people a false sense of security. Take for example the trade of mp3 music files via internet. This was stopped many years ago by a determined music industry that was irate and sick of piracy. However this did not put an end to illegal file sharing. “The trade of pirated music files continues through other, non-web avenues on the internet that are just as user friendly: peer-to-peer networks and email.” Keeping this example in mind let us return to the issue of child pornography. Government regulations cannot stop the sharing of child porn. Much of the pornography is traded through file-sharing that use websites which are not targeted by COPA. “In the name of protecting children, the law interferes with content that adults should have the right to see under the First Amendment. And laws like COPA can have unintended consequences: barriers to those who seek porn voluntarily will likely increase email solicitations for porn (spam), which COPA wouldn't regulate.” Parents, not government, can protect their children. If Parents choose to allow their children to access the internet, they must take on the responsibility to supervise. “Filtering-not just filtering software but filtered online services apart from the broader Internet that might be appropriate for the very young-is available” Tracking software is also available. This allows parents to monitor what their children do on the internet and where they go in cybersapce. Although some people would call such this spying it is less invasive than congress regulating the entire content of the internet for everyone.

The internet is a value access to our communities, we no longer have the time to seek out information at the library we need a reliable source to get at the truth, the media now a days is so full of uncertainties that we need to seek info some where else. This is some of the events taking place now, Network neutrality advocates have argued that legislation is necessary to ensure that network operators do not use their market power to block or discriminate among application or content providers on the Internet. The Internet should remain a neutral platform where consumers can continue to access and share any application or content online. Network
operators and their defenders have responded that regulation is unnecessary because, first, there
have been no substantial network neutrality violations and, second, because the FCC’s ex post
enforcement can address any violations. The moment of truth has come. A network operator,
Comcast, is engaging in substantial network neutrality violations. Specifically, Comcast is
secretly degrading innovative protocols used for transporting and sharing large files, like highquality
television programming and movies. This complaint asks the FCC to address this
violation. (fp_pk_comcast_complaint ) (openinternetcoalition.com/index.cfm?objectid=00D19298-F1F6-6035-B53)

Internet Issue and Debate

The internet issue and debate is a very controversial issue. In one of these debates Mr. Michael Krieger a Los Angeles based attorney whose practice is devoted to high technology business issues, especially for software, multimedia, and internet-related development, acquisition, licensing, distribution and services. He also has served as a special private adviser to Dr. Jon Postel, the late Internet Pioneer/”czar” implemented the U.S. Government’s mandate to transfer internet policy making and control to a private corporation.
He was asked during an interview, what type of impact democratization of information in the internet would cause? Mr. Krieger replied with this “ Hopefully it will level the playing field so that those with fewer resources will be at least somewhat more equal to those with great resources. Let’s say, for instance, the citizen who wants to be informed previously had to go to a depository library for many kinds of information, if we’re talking about the United States. Now many, many things are available over the web. The burden of gaining information is substantially lower. That runs the risk of people assuming that everything they want is on the internet so they pursue nothing elsewhere” what you all think?

should Internet be Free or privetized

The issue I am interested in is in keeping the Internet free to all citizens.


New state laws and FCC regulations have been detrimental to PEG access centers and programming across the country. Congress held a hearing to assess the damage. And guest commentator Megan Tady wants our new president to address the digital divide and work to make high-speed broadband accessible to everyone.
more» link http://www.freepress.net

Media Ownership History

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2008

media ownership history

Fifty years ago there were some 50 or so media companies around the world. Today there are only 6 large media companies in the world, these companies are : Time, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, News Corporation, and Vivendi Universal. How could or should I say how did this happen? It was when I started to investigate, I learned that the rule the Federal Communication Commission adopted in 1975 called the "newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban which prohibited a newspaper and broadcast or radio station from being co-owned changed. As of 2003 the commission adopted new media ownership rules and the ban was relaxed.