Net Neutrality

Imagine having an idea you wanted to share with the world. The spread of that idea is based, aside from its merits, on people hearing about it. Historically, newspapers, radio, and television ads were critical venues for that idea to gain visibility. This paradigm gave those with with larger budgets a significant advantage over others. But much of that changed when the internet was invented. 

The internet allows people to share their ideas freely and openly. When businesses compete online, no one company is given preferential treatment by internet service providers. It is precisely because of this unique property of online competition that we have seen so many new and innovative companies arise in the last few decades. Corporations like Google, Facebook,and Netflix were all born from this free and open environment. 

This concept is called "net neutrality". It is the principle that everyone with an internet connection is given the same service. When you log on, you can access everything that the web has to offer with equal speed. Regardless of whether you are visiting a large site like Facebook or a small blog, your connection to that site is given the same priority. This simple principle of neutrality has been a fundamental building block of the internet since its creation. However, all of that may change.

Now that the internet has grown to become an essential tool for many, some companies that control it are trying to find new ways to monetize. Internet service providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast seek to prioritize internet traffic for those who can afford to pay more, creating a two-tiered internet. While this may make sense at first glance, catering to those who pay extra actually hurts those that don't. It's as if you and your neighbor each want to mail a package, but since he paid for expedited service, your package gets delayed. 

Proponents of the plan argue that the two-tiered internet will promote innovation and expansion of the internet, citing little incentive to build faster networks if service providers cannot prioritize traffic. This argument is a red herring. Time Warner Cable and Comcast, the two largest internet service providers, do not compete for customers despite offering  the same services. There's no incentive to build faster networks because there's no competition. In fact, when Google decided to introduce its affordable high-speed internet service in Kansas City, Time Warner customers reported both speed increases and price drops. It seems that good old-fashioned competition is incentive enough to improve services, not some elaborate two-tiered internet.

The Federal Communications Commission is considering  this two-tiered system, and is currently taking public comment. Whether you use the internet for email, to keep in touch with friends, or for your business, be sure to voice your opinion. The FCC will take initial public comments until July 15th on the FCC website at http://www.fcc.gov/comments. Let's not allow special interest corporations control the tool that so many of us have come to rely on. Make your voice heard. 

500 words

--------Specific Comments---------------------------
In the first paragraph, is the idea bit worthwhile or is it not a good example?
Are we trying to emphasize corporate greed or personal the impact it will have on people? Appeal to justice or for self-preservation?
Do we want to make this about the haves and have-nots (wealthy and poor) or about restricting the flow of information?

As terrible as this sounds, in the second paragraph, would Yahoo/AOL be a better example for local newspaper readers? 

Either explicitly in the piece or in a cover letter, we should (somehow) demonstrate relevance to D&C's readership. It's a current issue and is relevant, but we do need to show it.

--------General Comments----------------------------
Maybe we should shoot for Monday.

--------Old Lines That We Should Remember--------------
Your idea could be easily shared among billions of people worldwide, and all you needed was an internet connection. This rule applied to individuals and corporations alike.