I just wish that in order to get published in the NYT, you actually had to have some insight into the subject you're talking about. I bring this up because all that's in evidence in Heffernan's piece is an assumption for some reason that the current state of affairs where companies like Apple serve as gatekeepers through their AppStores and subscription firewalls -- that this state of affairs not only will endure but will become the rule for online communication.
Of course, in order to make this assumption, you need to completely ignore what's been going on for 30 years or more. You also need to ignore what motivates people and instead assume that an environment where they're treated essentially as classic "consumers" is likely to be more successful than one where they can pretty much do whatever they want.
Of course, you can also look out the window in December and assume it'll snow all year, but doesn't entitle you to write articles on meteorology for the New York Times -- at least I thought.
Is a 'closed web' likely to become the way of the future? About as likely as companies like CompuServe and AOL making a come-back.
The FCC has been charged by Congress to come up with a plan to provide high-speed Internet access to all Americans. A group of Internet luminaries, including everyone from Vint Cerf to Larry Lessig, has come together to remind the FCC that what counts ultimately isn't the speed of the connection but what it connects to.
They've set up a site, appropriately named, 'ItsTheInternetStupid.com' where you can read what they've submitted and even add your endorsement.
Non-neutrality ... serves the interests of those who would like (more generally) to see the internet morphed into something much more akin to the current wireless model here in the US: a fully-monetized network, permitting use of particular applications that share their revenues with the network access provider. (This network would not be the same thing as the internet.)
....
It takes a lot of work to change an open system [like the Internet] into a cellphone system. But a cellphone system would put the network operators (and their friends in Hollywood, and law enforcement), back in charge of communications. They'd be able to charge whatever they want, outlaw whatever they want (eg, unwanted P2P communications, non-CALEA-compliant communications), and generally run the show they way they used to in the old days.
Backed by growing support on Capitol Hill and at the grassroots, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition marked its first anniversary today by renewing its call to make Net Neutrality the law of the land. The campaign was praised by leaders in Washington, who pledged to carry on the fight for Internet freedom in the halls of Congress.
In order to get its proposed merger with Bell South approved by the FCC, AT&T has agreed to abide by Net Neutrality at least for its DSL service. Initial reaction to this was largely positive echoing the conclusion of Tim Wu:
What is clear is that this agreement marks a critical moment in the recent history of Network Neutrality and big step forward for its supporters.
Unfortunately what isn't covered in the agreement -- in fact, it's specifically ruled out -- is AT&T's next generation internet service called "Internet Protocol television", or 'IPTV', for short.
Backed by growing support on Capitol Hill and at the grassroots, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition marked its first anniversary today by renewing its call to make Net Neutrality the law of the land. The campaign was praised by leaders in Washington, who pledged to carry on the fight for Internet freedom in the halls of Congress.
In order to get its proposed merger with Bell South approved by the FCC, AT&T has agreed to abide by Net Neutrality at least for its DSL service. Initial reaction to this was largely positive echoing the conclusion of 
