Explainer: Why You Need Net Neutrality

Net neutrality took quite a hit this week, and that's a huge problem to anyone using the Internet.
You probably haven't read much about it because, like most media-centric issues, net neutrality's just not on the radar screen of the mainstream media. And that's a shame, because keeping the Internet neutral is something that affects you and your ability to access information.
In fact, it's probably one of the those things you take most for granted: You want to find out about something, so you start up the laptop and log on to a search engine, like Google. You put in a keyword or two, and soon you get a mind boggling assortment of direct hits, as well as some odds and ends.
Now, what if I told you that, soon, this may change. If we lose net neutrality, what will happen when you try to perform the same kind of search is this: the information that comes up will be dictated by advertisers, or the information will be prioritized by what your broadband provider wants you to know.
Let me guess: Right now, you're wondering if, one, you just read what you read (you did, but feel free to read it again, if you want) and two, if you're still in America (yes or, at least, what's left of the Land of the Free).
Now that you know how the issue of net neutrality affects you, here's where the issue stands. This past week, the U.S. Justice Department told the FCC in a filing that net neutrality could get in the way of Internet development or, at least, slow it down. In effect, it was a vote for anti-net neutrality, as the DOJ laid out the welcome mat for business to trample over the rights of the consumer. (The "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006,” or COPE Act, was introduced to the Senate as an update to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Included in the COPE Act (S. 2628) is broadband consumer rights, but the bill, which was introduced in 2006, remains stalled in the Senate.)
But, that's not all.
What's incredibly troubling about all of this is that the Internet falls into the hands of a handful of major companies: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner, leaving the Internet even more consolidated than radio broadcasting, which has left us without news but with plenty of predictable playlists.
Actually, a handful of companies not only control radio, but television, too. With the FCC's attempts to throw out the ban on the old cross-ownership rules, these same handful of companies have been at work buying up our newspapers, too. Now, without net neutrality to protect you and me, we stand to lose the last frontier of freedom, where everyone and anyone who logged on could tell their story, share their thoughts and, in the process, be equal to one another.

Wag the Dog?

Every couple of years, there's a renewed interest in blaming Hollywood for kids' smoking.
It's that time again.
Now, I don't mean to imply that's a bad thing, just that everything -- from awareness campaigns to the seasons -- is cyclical.
Take, for instance, journalistic standards.
There was a bit of a to-do over the recent decision by the Tribune Co., owner of such papers as Newsday, the Chicago Trib and the L.A. Times, to allow its newspapers to put advertising on its front pages. Is this development the innovative big idea needed to save newspapers in times of flagging circulation and revenue figures? (Yawn) Hardly.
In fact, let's place the blame squarely on the shoulders of those at the Wall Street Journal, which announced its front page was no longer sacred ground more than one year ago.
Should we take umbrage over the commercialization (read: blatant sell-out) of a product that has allowed Madison Avenue to triumph over credibility? Well, we could, but much like the new anti-Hollywood movie smoking campaign, this, too, is cyclical. Newspapers decades ago ran advertising on their front pages until, poof, someone somewhere decided it was a bad idea and reclaimed page 1 as prime real estate for news.
Newsies are quite the pack animals, in case you didn't know. Once one breaks from the herd, the rest follow. Well, some are slower than others, to be sure; but rest assured, they all end up in the same place.
That's why one of the most common criticisms of television and cable news is that it all looks the same. Of course it does. If one person has a story, the rest of the pack scrambles to get it, too.
If one station or network decides it's going to stream news continuously across the bottom of your television screen, then by jolly, let's all do it!
Deep down inside, they just want to be liked, to be included, to be special. In that quest for individualism, they all end up looking the same, because they all hire the same consultant. It's really rather sad, isn't it?
The first reality show was a hit, most likely because it brought the viewer something new and fresh and interesting. Television's response was to bring viewers 22 reality shows the next season. In doing so, that which was appreciated for being out of the ordinary became commonplace.
Knowing that's the way it works, advertising moving to the forefront of newspapers shouldn't be much of a surprise. After all, all journalistic standards swing back and forth on the pendulum of public consciousness.
Worried photos are too graphic? Sure, there was a time when only the chalk or security tape outline of a body was photographed -- as long as there wasn't any blood. That changed with the O.J. trial.
You'd never see photos or footage of someone jumping out of a building. Then came Sept. 11.
As the news media continues to take lumps for loosening up its standards, the pendulum reminds us this, too, will change. Just take a look at some early newspapers with photographs of criminals after their electrocution. Suddenly, blood on a sidewalk pales by comparison.
The continuous yin and yang of news standards, aided and abetted by public appetite, is the most intriguing element of this whole thing.
Is the news simply giving you what you want, or is it defining for you what you need?
Will a new generation of kids take up smoking, even if they never see smoking in a movie? Why we do instinctively look to point fingers when standards change, as opposed to examining how we got here?
Would our world be a better place if the pendulum simply stood still?