In government, that strength is a function of money as well as laws, and government's income is taxes. If a company, or industry, disagrees with a regulation, it should be able to be heard; but they shouldn't be able to write the rules.
We seem to agree that water, gas, electricity and telephone service have been things we cannot do without. Why not Internet service, too?
The vote was taken at the Federal Communications Commission Thursday morning, as drums pounded and hundreds of demonstrators supporting Net neutrality chanted outside FCC headquarters.
If someone ever needed an example of "be careful what you wish for because you just might get it," look no farther than Verizon's lawsuit against the FCC's net neutrality rules and the high-tech showdown we see playing out today at the FCC.
The FCC should encourage the widest possible competition in next year's spectrum auction and let all competitors bid on the spectrum necessary to give Americans 21st century high-speed mobile broadband.
"Occupy Maine Avenue" may not have quite the same zing as "Occupy Wall Street," but protesters camped outside the Federal Communications Commission's headquarters on Maine Avenue in southwest Washington, D.C., are just as determined to be seen and heard as those who set up camp in Manhattan's Financial District in 2011.
There's not one Internet for deep-pocketed corporations and a separate Internet for everyone else -- there's the Internet, and it belongs to all of us. That's the way it's always been. And that's the way it should continue to be.
Next week, the FCC plans to propose new rules that its chairman claims will preserve the Internet as a free, fair and open communications medium for all. It seems far more likely that the rules will radically distort the medium by tilting Internet functioning even further in favor of the giant technology players.
It's both the best of times and the worst of times for the free speech rights the network is supposed to support. To break the cycle of repression we must look more closely at the tools protesters and reporters use and ask whether they further the cause of freedom, or just make speakers more vulnerable.
Barack Obama told us there would be no compromise on net neutrality. We heard him say it back in 2007, when he first was running for president. He said it many more times. And defenders of net neutrality believed him.
The issue of Net Neutrality affects more than just the amount you might pay for access to the Internet. It has implications for the future of the Internet and the economies that rely on the Internet.
Try as he might to convince people that he's on the right course, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler doesn't seem to grasp one basic problem: Encouraging online discrimination in the name of the open Internet is unacceptable.
As the Internet penetrates and alters every aspect of economic, social and political life, there are more profound and broad non-technical questions that must be addressed, including privacy, security, and neutrality of the Net, to spam, pornography and intellectual property.
If you think explaining tech policy is difficult, try putting it to music and lyrics. That's exactly the challenge that faced musician and artist Jonathan Mann, who last week composed a song urging Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler to ditch his plan for a payola Internet.
With the announcement by the FCC that cable and telephone companies will be allowed to prioritize access to their customers only one option remains th...
The surest way to stop progress towards real broadband competition is if the FCC's work grinds to a halt in a miasma of political and legal opposition. That's quite possible if it reverses a decade of precedent and reclassifies broadband. And that would be just the beginning of the process.