On day one, Comcast will control nearly 50 percent of the truly high-speed Internet market, and it will be the only broadband provider that can deliver Internet and pay-TV services to nearly four out of every 10 U.S. homes.
What we must have is a clear, enforceable, protected solution whereby ICANN does not fall under the influence of the colors of any country's flag or political leader.
The Internet offers an array of opportunities to connect. It is, effectively, one of the most critical infrastructures of our day. And yet, we still find it appropriate to create artificial barriers to its use. The benefits of the Internet are so profound that we ought not create limitations for its effective and productive use.
As the spaces and places in which we publish, speak and assemble grow more connected, the geography of freedom is in flux. We'll need to draw new maps, and forge new paths, and fight new battles to protect our rights online and off.
Most cities, therefore, already subsidized in some small way by a cable franchise or largesse of the local telephone monopoly -- are afraid to act or simply unaware of the stakes. This new thinking on the part of the FCC could free the cities.
Did Verizon v. FCC just end democracy, justice, and cat videos in one swoop? Will Comcast-zilla menace the digital city?
The beauty of the Internet is that it essentially levels the playing field for small businesses by giving them the potential to reach audiences with low-cost marketing methods.
President Barack Obama on Friday affirmed his strong support for Net Neutrality and expressed confidence that the Federal Communications Commission will use its authority to protect the open Internet.
In recent years, our members have turned to the Internet to tell the stories that are often ignored by the media. But the court decision will now make it harder for our members to tell those stories since ISPs like Verizon can now block Web content and sites that are relevant to our community.
The phone and cable companies and their paid-for experts can say whatever they want, for or against the open Internet. With real Net Neutrality protections in place, though, they can do little to destroy it.
There's been considerable noise in the press over the past few days about a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that declared that the Federal Communications Commission overreached in creating so-called Net Neutrality rules in 2010. But what does that ruling mean to the average business? Maybe nothing.
The Internet has become the critical distribution channel for artists and their work. It has opened new opportunities to reach and engage audiences, reduced the need for gatekeepers and middlemen, and established powerful new fundraising channels.
Rhetoric aside, provided neither the FCC nor Verizon appeal last week's decision, we can safely say we're comfortably still in the net neutral zone we've been in for the past ten years. But there is a bigger problem the Chicken Littles of the world fail to recognize.
It's a troubling sign that the information age has entered a new era -- one where our rights to connect and communicate are under constant siege by governments and corporations.
Always beware when the PR and marketing types cloak obnoxious business practices in the lingo of "greater value" for customers and their "key strategic partners."
Superstitious folks used to believe that trolls guarded bridges, preventing some from crossing, or charging a toll. Is that tomorrow's Internet will look like?