Heroes of the open Internet
Friday, March 28, 2008
The fight to keep the Internet free and open is, at its heart, motivated by a keen vision of how the world ought to be -- interconnected by open communications networks on which free expression, creativity, community, culture, commerce, politics, innovation, and competition thrive. The movement behind that fight is fueled by a powerful awareness that the Internet has, to an astonishing extent, made that vision possible, yet today finds itself under threat from a complex matrix of business and political interests.
In recent weeks, there has been some good news for the open Internet movement. In response to a growing public outcry, some major wireline carriers around the world are taking small but important steps toward content-, service-, and protocol-neutral network management. Some major wireless carriers have announced moves toward opening their networks. The 700mhz auction triggered important open-device and open-application requirements for new nationwide mobile networks. The Federal Communications Commission has been showing genuine concern about the potential for abuse inherent in non-neutral carrier policies. And key members of Congress are calling for legislative action. Pretty impressive (though no one's counting any unhatched chickens, I can assure you).
There are many heroes who built the movement and got it to this point, and one of them just got some well-deserved recognition: The Washington Post is today running a profile of Free Press's Ben Scott. A tip of the hat to Ben and his team at Free Press. It's great to see a major newspaper getting into the details around the open Internet debate.
////yet today finds itself under threat from a complex matrix of business and political interests.
ReplyDeleteThere are two sides to every story.
There are no heroes and villians, or good vrs evil. All problems exists because there are inequities and voids.
Perhaps those businesses have valid concerns that need to be addressed.
Perhaps there is a need for compromise.
That is the problem with this 'all or nothing' mindset of society. We do not try to understand the other viewpoints - just advocate for one side only and presume only one side is right.
Surely these businesses would not be advocating a change if there was not a valid concern and need to do so.
There has to be compromise and a REAL attempt to understand and empathize with ALL positions.