OK, I'm old. I was around when Channel 2 went on the air in Denver
in the early 50's and brought us Blinky the Clown. It was exciting.
Television. In Colorado!
In the mid-60s, cable TV and the dish staked their claims, and folks
in the mountains could finally see Star Trek and Mary Tyler Moore. A
whole new world was opening, no longer limited by four or five basic
channels. Cable and satellite promised real choice. Hundreds of
channels! Wow! You could see anything!
So what happened to all the choices?
Why is it that TV and the movies are always the same old, same old?
For one thing, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made it
possible to merge control of the television and film industries into
fewer and fewer networks. What started out as infinite possibilities
gradually became three super networks. These entities gobbled up the
studio system and the cable channels. Creative decisions were gradually
assumed by corporate boards that prefer safe, tested and bland to
innovative, daring and dramatic. It's one of the reasons hard news
became infotainment, and rich, life-changing drama is now "reality"
programming.
Too much creative control is in the hands of too few people who aren't creative.
The beginning of the 80s was the start of the Computer Age. I went
out and bought a Kaypro, a clunky box, with black screen and glowing
green text. It was great. Totally cutting edge.
Computers became more wonderful with color graphics and the mouse
thingy, but the most amazing and subversive change was INTERNET. In a
few short years, it turned the planet into one big neighborhood; and
with broadband access, it also offered interactivity.
We are no longer simple couch potatoes in front of the living room
TV. Today, we're interactive potatoes and use computers to communicate,
shop, or read and comment about everything from elections to Dancing
With the Stars. We converse with people around the country and world as
if they lived across the street. How quaint and microscopic those
"hundreds of channels" seem now.
Blogs and YouTube are the new political language. They were vital in
the Writer's Guild's recent successful struggle with management - the
very people who own the mainstream media. Truth is, the Internet does
more to democratize the world than any of the wars currently being
waged. It truly offers an infinity of choices that TV can't deliver,
and freedom of interactivity that telephones only dream of.
Something this massive and good just begs for someone to control it, don't you think?
Well, that group has surfaced. It's not the Chinese government, not
even your government. No, it's the telecommunications companies. The
same folks who offer you three-tiered packages of programming instead
of just charging you for the shows you want to see; the same people who
offer expensive long distance packages when you can do better for next
to nothing over the Internet; and the same people who want immunity
from prosecution for accidentally illegally wiretapping millions of our
phone conversations.
Since the telecoms deliver the Internet to you, they think the
government should grant them the power to control how you use it. They
want to make more money and put limits on what you see and how you see
it. In their world, websites should be charged for the privilege of
being seen by their customers. And sites should pay extra for making it
possible for consumers to download their material faster (-- by
removing the telecom's artificial restraints). Failure to pay these
tolls results in your site not being seen, or in ultra-lengthy download
times that drive impatient users elsewhere.
Imagine going online to CNN or to download music or watch an old TV
show, but the feed is so slow that it no longer works properly. The
grass on your lawn is growing faster. Why? Because someone didn't pay
tacked-on fees to the local cable or phone company, and the feed was
restricted.
The Telecoms are spending millions to convince Congressional
candidates that giving them control makes for a less expensive, better
Internet. As you read this, they’re donating money like there's no
tomorrow, because after this election, the new Congress will be forced
to decide if Telecoms should be given this power.
"Net Neutrality" basically means "Leave the Internet alone," and
it's the battle cry for those who think handing over management and
control of information to a few mega-corporations is the worst possible
idea.
Net Neutrality isn't another "nutty left wing crusade." Internet
giants like Google and Microsoft, consumer advocates such as Consumer
Reports, small businesses who might be relegated to the slow lane, and
iPod users who might find it harder to download tunes -- all want to
maintain Net Neutrality.
"Maintain" is the magic word. Net Neutrality doesn't ask for new
regulations; it only wants to be sure that the freedom we already have
is preserved. If you believe in a true open market and don't want to
give your freedom of choice to some corporate Big Brother, if you don't
want your Internet experience censored or restricted, if you enjoy
watching YouTube or visiting Facebook without limitations - you
probably support Net Neutrality without even realizing it.
It's time for you to speak up and ask a few questions. Now is when
you have the clout. Does your Senate candidate support maintaining
freedom of the Internet - or increasing profits for the Telecoms? If
you don't know, find out.
For more detailed information on the fight to save the Internet,
please check out www.freepress.net/files/nn_fact_v_fiction_final.pdf, a
fact sheet put together by Free Press, the Consumers Union, and
Consumer Federation of America.
Michael Janover grew up in Denver and went to school and
graduated from CU in Boulder in 1967. He’s been a WGA writer since
1978, worked for HAWAII 5-O, Wide World of Disney and wrote THE
PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT while in Hollywood. He also helped start the
Colorado Film School in Aurora.
Recent Comments