It's your choice! or is it?

Is it possible that the nation's largest cable companies could be making even more money?
Why of course! Based on providing an expanding roster of services for the urban and rural populations, whether it be TV, phone (this means you Rogers!) and most importantly internet, companies could be throwing more bucks in the bank if Network Neutrality became a thing of the past.
Never mind the threat of government or "high intelligence" censoring internet content, companies like Bell and Rogers could turn internet democracy into a metaphorical stock market given the right political support. Is this idea far-fetched? Not really. Attempts have been made in the past to bypass internet conventions by groups like the RIAA, who requested the court the access to names of illegal music downloaders. Though the request was shot down, the premise is the thought was there and that is a cause for concern. Perhaps more of a possibility in the States, where reports of an "ailing" economy are even broadcasted on CNN, there is no reason why political parties which are already being lobbied by media conglomerates could take the monetary bait in exchange for gutting this convention.
Understandably there must be tons of corporations and websites who would love to throw the EBay's, the Google's, the Youtube's off their high-horses. If this convention was scrapped, it could mean, for example, since Rogers has merged with Yahoo, users on the high-speed network would be obliged to use the Yahoo search network and the greatest competitor, Google, could be slow or even blocked. Who controls the internet? Right now, as long as the internet bill is paid, people do. The most obscure website to the most flashy corporate one, appears on your screen, at your command and most importantly at the same rate . If you get rid of network neutrality, that's called "rigging the playing field" and that's bad practice in everyone's books.

Big Bad Web?

It's understandable Tim Berners Lee is deeply concerned about undemocratic things happening on an arguably democratic channel. The web has been praised for connecting everyone into a larger global community but according to Lee has been developing "unchecked".
What exactly does Lee fear? Why is he ringing the alarm? To be honest, I am not too sure what "bad things" Lee is alluding to. From his interview with a BBC correspondent, it sounds as though Lee may not even know himself or perhaps, it's a premonition he has kept secret, which would lead to a whole new level of paranoia best left out of this entry.
When I think of "undemocratic", the immediate connection is "politics" so perhaps Lee, more or less, is alerting people to re-evaluate the way information is handled before it falls into totalitarian hands. This would certainly qualify as what Lee calls a "radical transformation of society". There have been minor attempts in the past to "check" web procedures as with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) attempting to acquire individual IP addresses of downloaders through the courts. Of course, this attempt was feeble and only successful in fining a few 13 year olds thousands of dollars. But looking at the bigger picture, what if these situations became legally commonplace? Lee says if we don't understand the web, we will end up in a bad place and what could possibly be worse than having your thoughts controlled? While we continue browsing our blogs, emails and downloading pictures and music, there may already be planned efforts to attempt to "undemocratize" the information available to us in the future. Take, for example, the initiative taken in China to censor certain websites. A friend of mine resorts to sending his Chinese e-mail penpal (e-pal?) the text to links she cannot access, for instance relating to Chinese history on wikipedia, which could be protocol not available to us in the future if things progess in an undemocratic way.
The forthcoming development of the web will be dependent not only on the IT experts and the graphic designers but also every person who makes use of their e-mail, blogs, etc. If we're to "check" the development of the web, as per Lee's interpretation, who better to do it than a multi-faceted democratic community? Waiting until the web is in the hands of elitist, purist or even governmental hands is like waiting in a straw house for the big bad wolf.

Contact Us? OK!

Dear Mr. Szabo,

In light of the coming election, I would like to encourage you to adapt your website as it is a portal between you and your constituents in more than just a technological sense. Understandably, there is a level of professionalism to maintain in the political sphere but as a younger member of your riding, I left your website feeling no connection to the person who is representing my wants and needs in a larger spectrum. The words "technological revolution" have been tossed around since the Internet came into play and certainly not without reason. With the powers of internet language, you can do so much to transform text into something exciting and appealing, therefore attracting a broader audience. I would hope that as an MP this would be your goal in representing the larger majority and I am concerned you are alienating a sizeable portion of society who are Internet adept and do not rely so much on other media for daily impressions of the world.

I am not suggesting you impose a massive website "face lift" but rather proposing subtle signs of showing your connection to the online world via personal messages on the home page or even something as simple as a date stamp of when a section has been updated. On a larger scale, one step below the "blog", there is the option of an open forum. This could be certainly advantageous to yourself because the voices of your constituents could be brought to you versus having to seek them out. We know most of us like to throw our "two cents" in, especially regarding community issues, so the success of such a venture is most likely if not guaranteed. More importantly, members of your riding will recognize your involvement in the tangible community as well as the virtual, broader world who we know can be more cruel than kind when ignored.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you for your time.

Elwira Oliwa