War Over Cables
The rich are getting richer and the poor are receiving less. Cable companies want Internet services to pay a price for using the lines. In one way, this would restrict who gets access to what. The rich will have access to the innovation of the digital world. This would damper competition and regulates what a person can access. On the other hand, fair is fair. People wouldn’t grow a garden in someone else’s lawn because they don’t have one of their own. If the owner of a lawn lets people grow things on his lawn he would charge a price. However, if he told the growers to only grow strawberries and bananas, this would setback their fruit variety and they would be at a halt in learning or experiencing new fruit until they can afford to have their own law. This is what will happen if consumers not only have to pay for having service, but also pay extra so that online services can pay their fees so consumers can access them.
If the corporate giants had it their way, they would block certain services from going through their cables and provide their own clone service. It’s like buying Wal-Mart brand waffles instead of Eggo Waffles, or CVS brand shampoo instead of VO5. Instead of being able to access Google or Yahoo a person may only be able to access Comcast Search Engine for example. This blocking of another service in place of only access to yours limits what a person can see and almost infringes on constitutional issues. Is a company taking away freedom of the press? If so, do they have that right? The answer, theoretically, is yes. It’s their wires, so they can say what goes through them.
When the Internet first came out, it was a private venture to begin with. The military didn’t have to let anybody use it. They were kind enough to share their invention with universities. However, if a fee was to be put into place, why didn’t the phone companies charge it then? Why did they wait nearly 30 years later to charge a fee for something that doesn’t affect phone or cable service? The answer is simple. The Internet has changed the economy. The entertainment industry is upset because artists are losing money. One person can buy a $16 CD and then download it and share it with the whole world. In theory no one would have to buy the CD, making the artist jobless and unemployed. In one way, this is bad. On the other side, people that are working on their own project might want to share sounds back and forth via the new invention the Internet. In that situation it’s a growing in communications thing. What about people that just want to download a CD to their computer and have it play while they clean the house?
Based on that example, we can see how the phone and cable companies are losing out on what they used to have. People no longer need just phone lines to communicate. People don’t need just television to watch and hear streaming video. The loss of many people went to the Internet. The same system that is running through their lines but they get nothing for it. Seeing how is affected them, they simply want their share back. What if, one day, the Internet companies decided to make their own wires? Then they wouldn’t need the phone and cable companies. So they would still lose out.
The Internet is truly a place for the free flow and exchange of ideas. It’s a way of communication to cultures on other parts of the world. Taking this away would set back the youth and poor. It’s not so much about competition as it is education. The rich would end up competing with each other for a handful of users’ money. But lost education puts a tint on society. There will be Internet illiterate youths with just that more of a struggle aside from low income. Maybe the libraries would get back into business. If there were a big library boom they would probably charge a fee just to check out a book never mind bringing it back late. This world revolves around money and that’s how it will always be. The Internet may not always be this free vehicle of information exchange, as we know it today.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are receiving less. Cable companies want Internet services to pay a price for using the lines. In one way, this would restrict who gets access to what. The rich will have access to the innovation of the digital world. This would damper competition and regulates what a person can access. On the other hand, fair is fair. People wouldn’t grow a garden in someone else’s lawn because they don’t have one of their own. If the owner of a lawn lets people grow things on his lawn he would charge a price. However, if he told the growers to only grow strawberries and bananas, this would setback their fruit variety and they would be at a halt in learning or experiencing new fruit until they can afford to have their own law. This is what will happen if consumers not only have to pay for having service, but also pay extra so that online services can pay their fees so consumers can access them.
If the corporate giants had it their way, they would block certain services from going through their cables and provide their own clone service. It’s like buying Wal-Mart brand waffles instead of Eggo Waffles, or CVS brand shampoo instead of VO5. Instead of being able to access Google or Yahoo a person may only be able to access Comcast Search Engine for example. This blocking of another service in place of only access to yours limits what a person can see and almost infringes on constitutional issues. Is a company taking away freedom of the press? If so, do they have that right? The answer, theoretically, is yes. It’s their wires, so they can say what goes through them.
When the Internet first came out, it was a private venture to begin with. The military didn’t have to let anybody use it. They were kind enough to share their invention with universities. However, if a fee was to be put into place, why didn’t the phone companies charge it then? Why did they wait nearly 30 years later to charge a fee for something that doesn’t affect phone or cable service? The answer is simple. The Internet has changed the economy. The entertainment industry is upset because artists are losing money. One person can buy a $16 CD and then download it and share it with the whole world. In theory no one would have to buy the CD, making the artist jobless and unemployed. In one way, this is bad. On the other side, people that are working on their own project might want to share sounds back and forth via the new invention the Internet. In that situation it’s a growing in communications thing. What about people that just want to download a CD to their computer and have it play while they clean the house?
Based on that example, we can see how the phone and cable companies are losing out on what they used to have. People no longer need just phone lines to communicate. People don’t need just television to watch and hear streaming video. The loss of many people went to the Internet. The same system that is running through their lines but they get nothing for it. Seeing how is affected them, they simply want their share back. What if, one day, the Internet companies decided to make their own wires? Then they wouldn’t need the phone and cable companies. So they would still lose out.
The Internet is truly a place for the free flow and exchange of ideas. It’s a way of communication to cultures on other parts of the world. Taking this away would set back the youth and poor. It’s not so much about competition as it is education. The rich would end up competing with each other for a handful of users’ money. But lost education puts a tint on society. There will be Internet illiterate youths with just that more of a struggle aside from low income. Maybe the libraries would get back into business. If there were a big library boom they would probably charge a fee just to check out a book never mind bringing it back late. This world revolves around money and that’s how it will always be. The Internet may not always be this free vehicle of information exchange, as we know it today.
posted by shortynspice at 9:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home