Net Neutrality: How I'll Be Affected By It.

Net neutrality is a new subject for me to even talk about. Google defines it as "a principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet" (Google, 2008). It's going to continue to grow as the most useful tool in the field of media. Internet users will be able to use the Internet to their advantage to make their content accessible to other users regardless of whether or not the content is acceptable, common, or offensive. Users will still be able to access the content no matter how old they are, especially if younger kids happen to catch extreme content that may not be age-appropriate.

The future of net neutrality is in jeopardy. Some of the major corporate telephone and cable companies, such as AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner, are working to control net neutrality by deciding the large number of websites to be up and running at the fastest speed and which sites won't run because of lack of speed. It would mean that speed matters when loading content on the Internet and usually the best sites are the ones with the advantage. Slow-running sites deserve better equally with the fast-running sites no matter what sites are popular among users. However, something is being done to keep the Internet in control of the users. An organization called Save the Internet is working to keep net neutrality going if users want to enjoy current content being provided online, including audio, video, podcasts, and others. Most users who run the internet with the content provided shows that the Internet is becoming more of a competitive business just like radio and television. In recent years, the World Wide Web has become a lot more competitive with different websites that have similar features, such as audio, video, podcasts, and e-mail. It is also mentioned that the future of net neutrality is being taken to Congress this year. Congress is currently reviewing a bill known as HR 5353: The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008. If passed, then Internet users will have more freedom and control of what they want to get and enjoy online without the help of the major companies that are providing Internet content. Users are going to continue to access their favorite sites for the content they love to see.

While the bill is being reviewed and ready for a possible passing, professionals who are under the study of new communications technology aren't all that skeptical of preserving Internet user freedom. Many believe that the bill wouldn't work in favor of Internet providers whose websites are very well-known becuase of the popularity of content. For example, author Art Brodsky sees the bill as surprisingly deceptive to the American public because he feels that the passing of the bill would require a study by the FCC and that the bill is less likely to pass if rejected by the Commission. It's as if anything that goes public electronically must meet FCC requirements, just as the same regulations set for radio and television broadcasts. Even Robert Khan, who helped develop the Internet a decade ago, decided to go against the net neutrality legislation, calling it nothing but a "slogan" and considers the legislation for net neutrality as a "danger than fragmentation." Khan feels that the passing of the legislation will not improve or enhance the experience of Internet users in the United States. If that's how he feels about it, shouldn't he think how not passing the bill would affect users in a big way? He fails to realize that the Internet is for the public and they're the ones who contribute to the ongoing success of this form of electronic media.

No matter how I see this issue, I believe that net neutrality will affect me in different ways. If the bill fails to pass, I'll be affected individually because I enjoy going to my favorite sites and getting informed, entertained, and educated. As a student, it would hurt because the Internet is the only fastest medium where students can access assignments, lecture notes, and current grades. As a resident of San Francisco and the Bay Area, I'd be one of millions of people affected by it because it's where information technology was created. As a global citizen and human being, it would be meaningful if the Internet remains the way it is for users alike. The Internet belongs to the public and it's up to Congress to keep that trend alive.

The Olympic Torch's Hectic Week in SF

Photo Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=1&f=/c/a/2008/04/07/MN6L101A0U.DTL

What a hectic week it has been for the city of San Francisco. Our city is the only North American city to host the Olympic Torch relay and people have mixed emotions about it. It all began when pro-Tibet protesters climbed the cables of the Golden Gate Bridge and attached a large message between the cables to warn China of their cruelty of human rights against Tibet. This is likely to be the coolest publicity stunt dealing with politics on a Bay Area bridge compared to Mancow's haircut stunt/traffic tie-up he pulled on the Bay Bridge back in 1993.

What was promising to be a safe and memorable event in San Francisco turned out to be the same result that happened in London and Paris. This time pro-Tibet and pro-China got themselves into each other's faces about the fact that their home country doesn't practice peace at the same time they're hosting a world event. Other than that, more people came out to protest against China's cruelty against Tibet. Did anyone fail to realize that the torch relay was in progress while the war of words between the two groups heated up? Whether members of pro-China like it or not, San Francisco is known for heavy protests against anything that relates to politics. It will be hard for them to realize that the actions of the Chinese government equals all hell to break lose against them for years to come, even after the summer games.

In light of all the protests, Olympic celebration, and politics all mixed up, the International Olympic Committee is beginning to face harsh criticism from demonstrators about what they've done. The torch is always considered a symbol of world peace and harmony while demonstrators worldwide consider it a symbol of the politics of evil. Because of this, spectators were unable to cherish the flame of the Olympic Torch as they were promised. After increasing outbursts and last-minute reroutes, the excitement of the event died down when it was announced that the torch was heading towards SFO.

Like past Olympics that were held in politically driven countries, this year's games should be able to go on despite the scrutiny that the host country is facing. It's also a warning to the IOC about what happens when they decide to host the Olympics in countries with abusive governments.