Common Cause - Holding Power ResponsibleCommon Cause - Holding Power Responsible

Topics
Our Issues
Money in Politics
Election Reform
Media and Democracy
Ethics in Government
Government Accountability
Press Center
Research Center
Register to Vote

Sign Up and join the Community - click here

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

America Online and Yahoo announced a program today that sounds good for their subscribers - but that could be the beginning of the end for openness and fairness on the Internet.

According to news reports, AOL and Yahoo are going to give preferential treatment to commercial emailers who pay a small per-message fee, about ¼ of a penny per email. For that tiny price, their email messages will bypass filters and get to subscribers faster and more efficiently than other email. They're billing it as a benefit (CertifiedEmail!) for you and me.

But don't be fooled. This practice is one step towards the end of net neutrality. Net neutrality is the principle that your Internet provider shouldn't be able to restrict, limit or interfere with your ability to access any web content you choose or use any application you choose - including email.

Maybe you think it's not a big deal that Amazon.com can pay to have its sales emails delivered to your inbox faster than your sister's vacation photos. But it sets a dangerous precedent of allowing Internet providers to pick and choose which content you'll be able to access and how fast it will be delivered to you. Today it's your email. Tomorrow it's websites you visit. And after that it'll be services, like the ability to download real-time video and watch TV shows on the Internet.

Stay tuned. Congress holds hearings on net neutrality tomorrow.


Tags: Media and Democracy, Net Neutrality, America Online, Yahoo (all tags)


Display:

AOL/Time magazine

AOLTime/Warner    is one of the biggest media giants in the world.  This company needs to be split up it has way to much control over what we see, hear and read. Time magazine is one of the most inaccurate magazines out there, i cant believe people buy it and believe the lies they print. This is the same magazine that named  Adolf Hitler, Man of the Year in 1938.  Yes the same man the almost wiped out the entire Jewish population.

http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/personoftheyea r/archive/stories/1938.html

by DRMIKE on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:30:41 PM EST


Re: AOL/Time magazine

Dr. Mike

       Shocking isn't, Time magazine named one of the most evil men that ever lived on this planet, Hitler their Man of the Year in 1938.  They also named Joseph Stalin, the Communist leader Man of the Year a couple years later. Im suprised they dont name Black Supremacist Louis Farrakan, leader of the Nation of Islam  Man of the Year. Here is some interesting reading from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?T=17&a mp;m=3

by Nadersupporter on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 02:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Dem. Marion Barry tested positive for cocaine

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, what a perfect name for the all Democratic Common Cause staff. With scandals all over the the U.S. involving crooked Democrats. We never see the CC staff ever writing about these dishonest Democrats, yet they call themselves "Nonpartisan". How about we change the name of this site to "DemocratCause" that would be more accurate anyways.  Here is the lastest on another crooked Democrat.  

http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20060207-1214 31-9458r.htm

by MusicofIndia on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 01:34:35 AM EST


Network Neutrality

we've been asked to comment on the term "network neutrality."  when I read what it's about, the term makes sense.  yet Common Cause's concern doesn't seem to be so much about the companies who provide Internet services so much as the possibility that these companies will change the nature of the Internet.  I share Common Cause's  concern that access to the Internet will become a tiered system -- that $$ influences will make it easier for some to impose their information on others, and will make it more difficult for other information to be accessed.  I think a more useful term would be something like "egalitarian access."  because it's access to Internet services that I'm worried about!  it may be a mistake to frame the issue in terms of who's providing the service (eg: the ISP companies) rather than the desired result.  isn't equal access the desired result?

by mlynkohn on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 04:11:00 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.


contact us | volunteer/intern programs | employment opportunities | site map | privacy policy