Net Neutrality law needed soon
Users of the Internet take for granted their ability to access all Web sites on an equal basis. That could change, however, if Internet service providers started discriminating among content, to make more money or to suppress ideas they do not like, points out a New York Times article. (Free registration at NYT may be required for access.)
Without a net neutrality law, Internet providers could charge Web sites a premium to have their content delivered faster than that of other sites. Web sites relegated to Internet “slow lanes” would have trouble competing. Many believe that this type of discrimination would interfere with innovation, making it difficult for new web services to get beyond the start-up stage.
Content discrimination would also allow I.S.P.’s to censor speech they do not like, say the NY Times, something that has already begun. An example happened last year when Verizon Wireless refused to allow Naral Pro-Choice America to send text messages over its network, reversing itself only after bad publicity.
There are several good net neutrality bills in Congress now which could be acted upon soon. “Cable and telecommunications companies are fighting net neutrality with lobbyists and campaign contributions, but these special interests should not be allowed to set Internet policy. It is the job of Congress to protect the Internet’s democratic form.”
EFF: Latest proposal on Telco immunity worse than the last
Senator Kit Bond (R) announced a new proposal to amend foreign intelligence surveillance law that included a purported “compromise” on the issue of whether telephone companies that illegally assisted in the government’s warrantless wiretapping program should be granted immunity from lawsuits such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF’s) lawsuit against AT&T.
“The purported immunity ‘compromise’ announced on Thursday by Senator Bond is a pure sham that’s even worse than the original immunity provision passed by the Senate,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. ”The stacked-deck immunity determination to be made by the court apparently still doesn’t include any meaningful review of the telecoms’ conduct or the legality of their cooperation with the NSA, simply a review of whether the companies got a piece of paper saying that the president authorized the surveillance. And the deck would be stacked even more by the proposed transfer to the FISA court — the most conservative and secretive federal court in the nation. Bottom line: it’s still immunity, and this so-called compromise concedes nothing.”
You will find more on Senator Bond’s proposal here (PDF) and here.
Government 2.0
How about a new form of open government that creates a data platform instead of individual US government web sites? A draft article of the Yale Journal of Law & Technology set to be published next fall, according to Read/WriteWeb, makes such a proposal because current government web sites are so bad.
“Rather than struggling, as it currently does, to design sites that meet each end-user need, it should focus on creating a simple, reliable and publicly accessible infrastructure that “exposes” the underlying data.”
Government would become a data platform under the proposal, bringing vast amounts of data to the public, for example via API, and let the private sector mash it up to make helpful services for people. Easy access to the massive amounts of government data would very probably lead to some compelling mashups and consumer services, says RWW.
I can see some problems with this one — how about you?