Is the Internet becoming another one-way highway?
Net neutrality is a very interesting topic. Although Ed Whitacre, and other who share his point of view, claim that net neutrality is not going to choke off indepednet websites, that doesn' mmean there won't be power abuse in the future. Companies like AT&T are not intersted in looking out ofr the small people, all they care about is satisfying their greedy bank accounts. This is clearly shown by their desire to own the Internet. Enough will never be enough, so they need to settle. I oppose net neutrality; the Internet is one of the fastest and most efficient communication mediums in our time and should not be limited to the consumers. I don't see why people can't have unlimited and inexpensive access to the Internet. Why should this communication highway become a higher priced commodity? It is clear to me as daylight that this is just the start in large corporations putting a price tag, surveillance, and limitation to ALL of our entertainment and communicaiton mediums. It has already started in the radio and TV broadcasts.
The "Humanity Lobotomy" discussed how 99% of TV programs and radio broadcasts are one-way communication channels. The Internet is the last communication toll that is mostly comprised of everday people's websites, music, blogs, etc. I don't think that its fair to cut their channel and make it one way just like the radio broadcasts and TV channels. I don't want to say mean things baout Ed Whitacre, and others like him, but its because of people like him, who only look out for the best interest of their wallets, that this country will face social chaos and political uproar. I agree with "Mumbo Jumbo" that net neutrality is bad for consumers. I believe the price we'll pay will span deeper than our pockets. Our greatest price will be paying for freedom of speech.