Why the Democratic Ethic of the World Wide Web May Be About to End

NY Times ^ | May 28, 2006 | ADAM COHEN

[neverdem]

The World Wide Web is the most democratic mass medium there has ever been. Freedom of the press, as the saying goes, belongs only to those who own one. Radio and television are controlled by those rich enough to buy a broadcast license. But anyone with an Internet-connected computer can reach out to a potential audience of billions.

This democratic Web did not just happen. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the British computer scientist who invented the Web in 1989, envisioned a platform on which everyone in the world could communicate on an equal basis. But his vision is being threatened by telecommunications and cable companies, and other Internet service providers, that want to impose a new system of fees that could create a hierarchy of Web sites. Major corporate sites would be able to pay the new fees, while little-guy sites could be shut out.

Sir Tim, who keeps a low profile, has begun speaking out in favor of "net neutrality," rules requiring that all Web sites remain equal on the Web. Corporations that stand to make billions if they can push tiered pricing through have put together a slick lobbying and marketing campaign. But Sir Tim and other supporters of net neutrality are inspiring growing support from Internet users across the political spectrum who are demanding that Congress preserve the Web in its current form.

The Web, which Sir Tim invented as a scientist at CERN, the European nuclear physics institute, is often confused with the Internet. But like e-mail, the Web runs over the system of interconnected computer networks known as the Internet. Sir Tim created the Web in a decentralized way that allowed anyone with a computer to connect to it and begin receiving and sending information.

That open architecture is what has allowed for the extraordinary growth...

[corbe]

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the British computer scientist who invented the Web in 1989

Someone need to enlighten Al Gore about this troubling new developement.

[Paladin2]

The days of the Wild West of the 'net are going to be over soon. Worst of all will be the influx of the infernal revenuers, who need to be run out of town on a rail.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

[pabianice]

I smell a rat. The Times was a leader in getting the execrable CFR passed, which made it a crime to say anthing bad about any Liberal. I suspect the Times is up to its slimey tricks again.

[martin_fierro]

Why the Democratic Ethic of the World Wide Web May Be About to End
. . .
Freedom of the press, as the saying goes, belongs only to those who own one.

In other words, there internet is in danger of becoming the NYT.

[oceanview]

the ISPs need paying subscribers. once they start restricting certain sites, some portion of their subscriber base will start cancelling service.

charging certain content hosts, who need more bandwidth to run their services - that is simply basic business practice. whether they get the money from the consumer (you can already pay more for faster service at your home, if you want it), or from those content providers themselves, that's not the same thing as totally eliminating certain sites based on politics.

[martin_fierro]

there internet = the internet

[JimRed]

The word "democratic" no longer means what it did; now it refers to socialism lite!

[IZ-Contractor]

no, no, no...Al Gore invented it and we must never forget. He, alone in a dark room, is the almighty webmaster.

All hail Al.

[FreedomCalls]

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the British computer scientist who invented the Web in 1989 Someone need to enlighten Al Gore about this troubling new developement.

The Web is not the Internet as the article pains to make clear. Many of us were using the Internet for e-mail, ftp, telnet, and Usenet long before the Web was conceived.

[Jack Black]

web = http ? Is that what he invented?

[mdefranc]

Why not let free markets determine the pricing mechanism? Often, it's efficient that those using a scarce resource pay in proportion to their use. Berners-Lee's free speech concerns should be directed at government censors, not at competitive markets.

[bwteim]

See

Frequently asked questions (by Tim Berners-Lee himself)
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ

The WorldWideWeb browser
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html

From
http://www.w3.org/

[Candor7]

Why the Democratic Ethic of the World Wide Web May Be About to End >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sorry, it won't happen. There is too much money being made by a free web, and socilaists who want to tax its commerce, won;t be able to enforce due to technical innovation and the webs black market.

The only way the web can be controlled is to shut it down completely.

Censorship by government would only cause an amalgamation of hackers and legitimate web users, and off shore sub rosa servers, accessable via VHF radio and satellite.

The cat is out of the bag, no government can ultimately dictate web content or its commerce without declaring war on its own citizenry. Step up to the plate dems and MSM, stick your arm in here and watch it get chewed right off!

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I think you're confusing the free market with monopoly.

The idea expressed in the article is that the tiered pricing would not be based upon content, but upon the sector of the audience that the type of site reaches. Thus Drudge would be charged huge fees because of his weekly hits. He probably wouldn't be able to afford the licensing fee his web host would force upon him (regulated by the government, of course). But sites like the NY Times could.

The NY Times has already editorialized that the 1st Amendment does not apply to the Internet and that some uses the Internet (such as blogs) is an abuse of the First Amendment, because anyone can post any "news" that may not be factually based, thus expressing opinion rather than news. Ironic that the Times would levy such a complaint, but hypocrisy is the standard of the Left.

This is why they're running the story. They'll claim to be on the side of democracy, but as the debate heats up they'll switch tack and say, "There have been too many inaccuracies in Blogs and this is inciting people based upon misinformation. We need to regulate them." Tiered pricing will be seen as the "fairest" regulator. In order to host a site with news or editorials, you'll have to pay some sort of licensing or broadcasting fee, much as radio and television stations do, which Leftists like the Times will hope will be too much for you and me to pay. Thus we'll drop out of existence and join and log onto the megasites that can afford the fees, reducing us once again from vigilant participants in this Republic to mere consumers.

Big news companies will support it because at heart they have a tendency toward Corporate Socialism. They don't mind paying a fee if tiered pricing eliminates their competition and helps them establish and maintain a monopoly.

[expatpat]

The www. bit is the world wide web.

[expatpat]

However, the Internet was invented by a bunch of reserach scientists at various labs. Algore couldn't even get a Divinity degree, never mind abour a degree in hard science.

[expatpat]

However, the Internet was invented by a bunch of research scientists at various labs. Algore couldn't even get a Divinity degree, never mind abour a degree in hard science.

[Phlap]

the British computer scientist who invented the Web in 1989,

Wrong.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The irony is that Bill Bradley initially promoted Campaign "Finance Reform" speech regulation under the rhubric of preventing "the poor man's soap box" from being overwhelmed by "the rich man's wallet."

At the very moment Bradley was promoting that conceit, the WWW was beginning to become a "poor man's soap box" competitive with the rich man's wallet.

And that's what John McCain and his buddies at The New York Times don't like about it.