Week #7 Assignment

Net Neutrality


What is it?: Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the internet should be treated equally. This allows the network to carry every form of information and support every kind of application. The theory behind the network neutrality principle, which the internet sometimes gets close to, is that a neutral network should be expected to deliver the most to a nation and the world economically and socially. The argument is whether companies for the internet should be allowed to charge providers for the privilege of reaching viewers.


Questions about it?: The biggest question about net neutrality seems to be the simple question of, "What is neutral?". Everyone's ideas of neutrality seem to differ, causing this issue to have several problems. Another question is what business models are the phone and cable companies attempting to preserve by opposing Net Neutrality. Most of the questions surrounding this issue seem to be directed towards the companies themselves and ask about motives and where this issue seems to be heading.


Who is for/against it?: Companies that are FOR net neutrality such as Google, Yahoo, Vonage, Ebay, Amazon, IAC and Microsoft. Some companies that are AGAINST net neutrality are large hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries. Other companies against net neutrality are Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Goldwater Institute and Americans for Tax Reform.

My thoughts: I would have to say that I am for net neutrality. I think it makes sense to have everything equal on the internet and that in the end, all these raising of fees will all come down to the consumers, us. I do not like the idea of telecommunication companies controlling what sites can be visited and when it is allowed to view them. I feel like if the internet is not broken, why fix it? The net is safe, fair and neutral the way it is right now--with our choice of websites, our choice of when and where to visit and our choice of the experience we receive from them. The more government intervention and regulation that comes about, the less neutral and free the internet is going to be. I use many sites such as Google, Amazon and Youtube, and though it sounds horrible to say - I would definitely have a hard time without them. I also do not agree with the censorship that would change if there is not net neutrality. My beliefs have sparked from these 3 outside sources:

ARTICLE: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/newmark.internet/

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iqw2tgw5mE

INTERVIEW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE48TqymnR0

Week #6 Assignment

February 23, 2010

http://bluegrassfilmsociety.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html

I thought this image concerning the issue with the Pentagon propaganda and military analysts was extremely strong and relevant. The quote is a perfect representation of how Americans felt after hearing the news about the Pentagon's program. It is an image obviously against the way the media is informing the public and giving biased information about the war, according to the way the Pentagon wants it. So, the "compared to what lies right to our faces" is a clear blow to these military analysts. What happened yesterday and what is going to happen tomorrow does not even matter if we are getting lied to with the wrong information.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQP7ASBdwdo&feature=player_embedded

I chose this interview/video from YouTube because of the different angle it gives on the topic by seeing people live and hearing interviews. It does oppose the Pentagon's military analysts and explains how these men are supposed to be giving objective assessments of the war and instead are just giving biased information. I like how it ties into the New York Times article we were supposed to read and used quotes from it for support. Since I had not seen this issue on the news, I thought it was important to be able to watch some coverage on this link.




http://captainplaid.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html

I also thought that this image was a great representation of the issue at hand. The media images on the ball and chain just go to show how much the government and the media controls our eyes. These military analysts can (and do) literally omit anything they choose while only informing the public on the biased information that they feel necessary. It is as if America is wrapped right within this ball and chain. There is no better way to show how far the media and the Pentagon has taken advantage over the people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/pentagon-military-analyst_n_242305.html

I chose this article because it gives a different perspective on this issue: that the Pentagon did NOT break the propaganda rule. It is said in the article that although the Pentagon did try to influence the public opinion, there is no proof that they tried to conceal it. There was also no evidence that these military analysts were paid for this positive commentary. Since the New York Times article was an article against this Pentagon propaganda, reading a different view of the issue helps to see the problem from both angles.



Overall, this issue only added to my anger about the biased news we get from the media. However, it did not surprise me in the least. I actually hate watching the news, simply because I know whatever they are reporting on is either half of the story or is going to give me nightmares. Sometimes, I would rather just not know. I was not surprised because the government can do whatever they want. They can completely make up stories on the media and the American people would have no idea. I do not agree with these military analysts reporting on only positive aspects of the war and I think it is absurd that with a war concerning OUR country, we are not getting the right information. In my opinion, they were completely against the federal law.