The purpose of the Internet is to give power over information to everyone. The role of our elected leaders is to protect our basic right to communicate from those who want to take it away from us. Whether it’s on the Internet or at public hearings we must stand up for everyone’s right to connect.

Honestly, I don’t understand how this could be possible in the first place.
Can’t you get your broadband from somewhere else?

I can choose out of three different cables, of which at least one (the phone cable) is -free-for-all- (so about a dozen companies) and about 5 different wireless operators. The providers here spent millions in court just to prevent having to turn over somebody’s ip. Not out of ethics or anything like that. They just assume we are no idiots and can and will switch.

Publicly stating you want to control the content is ehm .. hilarious. How can they possible have any customers?

Anyways, this is _not_ the future of the internet. For one, the united states is just some country and is not very likely to play en equally dominant role in the future. Secondly this is just some provider with either no sense or a monopoly. In both cases, it can not and will not become a trend.

Speaking of the Cablecos and their bandwidth, the FCC’s open forum on traffic management starts today in Harvard. Speakers will include representatives from Comcast and Verizon, U.S. Rep Ed Markey of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, and Profess…

Disabled content producers and subscribers depend on the Internet if we are to have any hope of participating in media of our own. Our social movement, civil and human rights struggle for social inclusion has been ignored by the conventional media. Four decades since our social movements began in the ’60’s we are only now beginning to hear our voices rising — via the Internet. It seems obvious that with our first tentative steps it would not be in our interest to surrender this ‘digital commons’ to uncaring corporate commercial interests.

The telephone and cable network monopolies have already demonstrated to us how they use their non-competitive advantages — it has not been to improve services to disabled customers. They invest in lobbying against enforcement of US laws requiring them to provide accessibility (Section 255 of the Telecom Act — providing for ‘reasonable accomodation’ of people with disabilities). As a result, a person like myself that is visually impaired (about 22 million), cannot use the settop boxes and interactive services which fail to provide any ‘reasonable accommodation’. Their web-based services and websites are also inaccessible — in violation of international Internet 2.0 standards and, in violation of US law (Title 2 of the ADA.) In any event it is rude and inconsiderate — not the kind of people you would trust to look out for the publi’c best interests.

As the USA is rated 17th in the world for telecommunications infrstructure and services and their is no evidence of this industry having any plans or initiatives currently underway to address the needs of disabled people with regard to improving our access to the critical resources of the Internet, they should be banned from having any role with regard to its operation or regulation. To be of benefit to people with disabilities, the Internet should remain a public commons and a free forum for all who wish to participate. The monopolies that are in the business of provisioning and operating broadband networks should be restricted from any involvement in regulating what content or services the customers receive.

With the high degree of commercialization of broadcast radio, TV, cable, satellite and the consolidation of newspapers in the hands of a select few, it is obvious that there needs to be a counterbalance in the marketplace. The Internet has been the safety valve for all who are disenfranchised by the ignorance and predjudice of the corporate elites who’s cultural viewpoints have dominated all media. The total exclusion of such a vast community as the 54 million disabled people in the US suggests that the only acceptable ‘reasonable accomodation’ is our independence from corporate control.

FCC Commissioners must do the right thing and bar the telephone and cable companies from controlling our broadband networks.