In response to David's comments re Bill Fitzgerald's posting on Drupal Moodle integration with Elgg I had penned the following a few weeks ago and never got around to posting it. Sorry the graphic didn't display -will have to work on it.  

Can an LMS and a social software approach be combined and integrated to collectively enhance the distance education learning experience?

 Terry Anderson has proposed the concept of an educational social overlay network as a solution to how we can keep our traditional learning structure of the Learning Management Systems (LMS) but still move toward creating a richer, more interactive learning environment through the use of social software. Social software would act as an interface for these educational social overlay networks that would serve as “fluid, emergent and self organizing… that serve to connect and support social interaction among students enrolled in formal education programs.” (Anderson, 2005). Overlay network is computer science term used to describe a virtual indexing system that rides on top of a physical network.
Anderson quotes Maurya (2005) who argues that the most effective use of overlay networks is “for implicit discovery through context spaces, tags and feeds.” Context space refers to spontaneous or planned social spaces that invite opportunities for knowledge sharing and cooperation. Examples of social software tools that could provide context space include Elluminate, Writely and Wikkis. Tags include formal metatagging schemes (e.g.  Dublin Core) and folksonomie (informal) tags that are terms a learner would personally create to identify and categorize their learning artifacts and contributions to the social learning community. Feeds are forms of syndication (e.g. RSS) emerging from both formal feeds (e.g. academic journals) and informal publications (e.g. blogs, student portals). Anderson notes that these feeds are artifacts that are owned and retained by the student, not the institution via a posting in the LMS. (Anderson, 2005)

 Anderson (2005) has created a working example of a social network overlay by integrating a number of social software tools with the LMS Moodle in the delivery of his MDE663 course. He uses Elgg to create Me2U, a learning environment social software tool to provide blogging, group support and personal connections. While similar to an LMS, Elgg is open source, provides informal tagging, context space and feed that lives beyond the course. He uses Elluminate for real time voice communication and creating social presence and Furl to share bookmarked resources and poll knowledge. The LMS, Moodle, is used for structured content delivery, asynchronous interactivity and course administration.

 

Anderson (2005) identifies that the challenge in developing social network overlays and integrating with an LMS is in identifying which components of the learner’s life should reside in their personal web space and what components should reside in the webspace of the formal educational institution.

 

 When devising a social learning environment it is important to delineate where institutional and learner ownership reside, and where they overlap. Hiemstra and Brocket (1991) describe Mocker and Spear (1982)  model of lifelong learning based on who  controlled the learning process – the institution or the learner:

1. Formal learning: the institution controls both the objectives and the means of learning;

2. Nonformal learning: the learners control the objectives but not the means;

3. Informal learning: the learners control the means but not the objectives; and

4. Self-directed learning: the learners control both the objectives and the means.

This is a useful model to use to identify the levels of ownership for each layer and element in this Social Learning Environment Model.  

  The LMS layer is the formal learning delivery layer owned by the educational institution. The institution is responsible for the design, development, direction and implementation of the LMS. It is the most structured and controlled of all the layers. However, the structure must be open source to allow integration with the other application layers. The LMS has a predefined structure and content. The Learner Passport is the institutional profile of the student, and grants access to all resources made available through registration with the institution. It is a temporary layer to the Learner Profile, which is owned by and managed by the learner. The Learner Profile is part of the Portfolio Overlay and of the Presence Notifier.
The Portfolio Overlay has a degree of structure to it, but allows for learner (and initially institutional) customization. Portfolio overlays must be open source software to allow integration with the layer above and below it and be designed to meet learner needs not institutional requirements.  Primary learner needs include control over access permissions, connectivity tools that mine and document person to person relationships, depth of personal information to include and security controls such as the ability to restrict/modify personal profile information based on receiving audience. Meeting these needs will cause tension, but they are the basis for an equitable, fair relationship with learning providers. The learner must be respected as the ultimate guardian of their learning and personal information. If this is the learner’s first electronic profile then it is provided to the learner initially and expected to be jointly owned by the institution and learner until the learner’s academic studies are completed. At that time it becomes the property of the learner. Academic institutions (or consortiums) should sponsor open portals where alumnae without server space can “park” and access their profiles. Although the learner may not be enrolled in a course or program, they may still be informally learning and using their profile for personal, professional or work related purposes. Learning events may be episodic but the learning process is continuous and a learner’s association with past schools and cohorts should be maintained.

 

Ensuring the portfolio application is the property of the learner recognizes the possibility of continuous learning, formal and informal, beyond previous schooling. The Presence Notifier includes pushed and pulled forms of notification.

The Portfolio Overlay is situated between the Social and LMS overlay for three reasons. It is personal, it is mobile, and it is permanent (until a learner chooses to abandon it). The learner owns it, the learner will “take it away” when studies are completed with an institution, and it will live on even after the learner has ended their relationship with a particular educational institution. However the links established between the Social Overlay and the Portfolio Overlay may (and probably will) continue. This approach ensures that the learner can enjoy the “freedom of relationship” with whatever virtual or non-virtual entity they choose and the “freedom to own” their learning experiences.  

The Social Overlay is the overlay for social software. It may be Formal or Self Directed or both . That is, what web based services and tools the student uses, what they do and who they associate with may be guided directly or indirectly by the direction or guidance of the academic program they have chosen. Alternatively it may be totally self-directed by the learner, and the actions pursued may be for personal, professional, work-related, or academic reasons. It should be noted that this is the social space of the learner and they should experience it with the guidance, not direction of the institution. If, for example, the student has a personal weblog, it can be, at the learner’s discretion, be used as a social software for their course of study. The Filter and the Referrer are controlled by the educational institution in service of the learner and to feed assessment criteria. The Filter is required to confront the barrage of information and weed out the undesirable information, allow in the useful items and delete the spam. The filtering system must be customizable by the user. The Referrer tracks the activities a student engages in and the results of these activities can be used to improve learning networks and suggest further referral nodes. The Referrer would also be used to track activities that occur in the Associated Offline Activities Overlay.

The Associated Offline Activities Overlay represents possible consequences of the use of social software in meeting the needs of formal and informal learning. Face to face meetings – for socializing, collaboration, conference, reflection, presentation, and learning – may occur and should (at the discretion of learner and/or suggestion of institution) be documented and tracked in the Learner Profile.  Here the invaluable contribution of the professional community, family, etc. is integrated with the learning community
The social learning environment model discussed above is meant to drive discussion about how social software could pragmatically fit within the reality we now find ourselves in. Educational institutions will adapt to social software but it will not happen quickly, and perhaps it shouldn’t. Certainly change theory advises us to go slow, and to bridge from the known to the unknown – or in this case from the LMS to social software. We shouldn’t concern ourselves with ultimate conceptions of the perfect social learning environment. We should look at this model as a tool, a mode of inquiry to better understand our situation and come up with more effective problem solving around how to make the best of the existing situation. Besides, perhaps it’s better to work on change from within.

 

 

 
 

Keywords: Elgg, integration, LMS, personal space, public space. integration model, social software

http://elgg.net/michaelh/weblog/9710.html

In response to David's comments re Bill Fitzgerald's posting on Drupal Moodle integration with Elgg I had penned the following a few weeks ago and never got around to posting it. Sorry the graphic didn't display -will have to work on it.  

Can an LMS and a social software approach be combined and integrated to collectively enhance the distance education learning experience?

 Terry Anderson has proposed the concept of an educational social overlay network as a solution to how we can keep our traditional learning structure of the Learning Management Systems (LMS) but still move toward creating a richer, more interactive learning environment through the use of social software. Social software would act as an interface for these educational social overlay networks that would serve as “fluid, emergent and self organizing… that serve to connect and support social interaction among students enrolled in formal education programs.” (Anderson, 2005). Overlay network is computer science term used to describe a virtual indexing system that rides on top of a physical network.
Anderson quotes Maurya (2005) who argues that the most effective use of overlay networks is “for implicit discovery through context spaces, tags and feeds.” Context space refers to spontaneous or planned social spaces that invite opportunities for knowledge sharing and cooperation. Examples of social software tools that could provide context space include Elluminate, Writely and Wikkis. Tags include formal metatagging schemes (e.g.  Dublin Core) and folksonomie (informal) tags that are terms a learner would personally create to identify and categorize their learning artifacts and contributions to the social learning community. Feeds are forms of syndication (e.g. RSS) emerging from both formal feeds (e.g. academic journals) and informal publications (e.g. blogs, student portals). Anderson notes that these feeds are artifacts that are owned and retained by the student, not the institution via a posting in the LMS. (Anderson, 2005)

 Anderson (2005) has created a working example of a social network overlay by integrating a number of social software tools with the LMS Moodle in the delivery of his MDE663 course. He uses Elgg to create Me2U, a learning environment social software tool to provide blogging, group support and personal connections. While similar to an LMS, Elgg is open source, provides informal tagging, context space and feed that lives beyond the course. He uses Elluminate for real time voice communication and creating social presence and Furl to share bookmarked resources and poll knowledge. The LMS, Moodle, is used for structured content delivery, asynchronous interactivity and course administration.

 

Anderson (2005) identifies that the challenge in developing social network overlays and integrating with an LMS is in identifying which components of the learner’s life should reside in their personal web space and what components should reside in the webspace of the formal educational institution.

 

 When devising a social learning environment it is important to delineate where institutional and learner ownership reside, and where they overlap. Hiemstra and Brocket (1991) describe Mocker and Spear (1982)  model of lifelong learning based on who  controlled the learning process – the institution or the learner:

1. Formal learning: the institution controls both the objectives and the means of learning;

2. Nonformal learning: the learners control the objectives but not the means;

3. Informal learning: the learners control the means but not the objectives; and

4. Self-directed learning: the learners control both the objectives and the means.

This is a useful model to use to identify the levels of ownership for each layer and element in this Social Learning Environment Model.  

  The LMS layer is the formal learning delivery layer owned by the educational institution. The institution is responsible for the design, development, direction and implementation of the LMS. It is the most structured and controlled of all the layers. However, the structure must be open source to allow integration with the other application layers. The LMS has a predefined structure and content. The Learner Passport is the institutional profile of the student, and grants access to all resources made available through registration with the institution. It is a temporary layer to the Learner Profile, which is owned by and managed by the learner. The Learner Profile is part of the Portfolio Overlay and of the Presence Notifier.
The Portfolio Overlay has a degree of structure to it, but allows for learner (and initially institutional) customization. Portfolio overlays must be open source software to allow integration with the layer above and below it and be designed to meet learner needs not institutional requirements.  Primary learner needs include control over access permissions, connectivity tools that mine and document person to person relationships, depth of personal information to include and security controls such as the ability to restrict/modify personal profile information based on receiving audience. Meeting these needs will cause tension, but they are the basis for an equitable, fair relationship with learning providers. The learner must be respected as the ultimate guardian of their learning and personal information. If this is the learner’s first electronic profile then it is provided to the learner initially and expected to be jointly owned by the institution and learner until the learner’s academic studies are completed. At that time it becomes the property of the learner. Academic institutions (or consortiums) should sponsor open portals where alumnae without server space can “park” and access their profiles. Although the learner may not be enrolled in a course or program, they may still be informally learning and using their profile for personal, professional or work related purposes. Learning events may be episodic but the learning process is continuous and a learner’s association with past schools and cohorts should be maintained.

 

Ensuring the portfolio application is the property of the learner recognizes the possibility of continuous learning, formal and informal, beyond previous schooling. The Presence Notifier includes pushed and pulled forms of notification.

The Portfolio Overlay is situated between the Social and LMS overlay for three reasons. It is personal, it is mobile, and it is permanent (until a learner chooses to abandon it). The learner owns it, the learner will “take it away” when studies are completed with an institution, and it will live on even after the learner has ended their relationship with a particular educational institution. However the links established between the Social Overlay and the Portfolio Overlay may (and probably will) continue. This approach ensures that the learner can enjoy the “freedom of relationship” with whatever virtual or non-virtual entity they choose and the “freedom to own” their learning experiences.  

The Social Overlay is the overlay for social software. It may be Formal or Self Directed or both . That is, what web based services and tools the student uses, what they do and who they associate with may be guided directly or indirectly by the direction or guidance of the academic program they have chosen. Alternatively it may be totally self-directed by the learner, and the actions pursued may be for personal, professional, work-related, or academic reasons. It should be noted that this is the social space of the learner and they should experience it with the guidance, not direction of the institution. If, for example, the student has a personal weblog, it can be, at the learner’s discretion, be used as a social software for their course of study. The Filter and the Referrer are controlled by the educational institution in service of the learner and to feed assessment criteria. The Filter is required to confront the barrage of information and weed out the undesirable information, allow in the useful items and delete the spam. The filtering system must be customizable by the user. The Referrer tracks the activities a student engages in and the results of these activities can be used to improve learning networks and suggest further referral nodes. The Referrer would also be used to track activities that occur in the Associated Offline Activities Overlay.

The Associated Offline Activities Overlay represents possible consequences of the use of social software in meeting the needs of formal and informal learning. Face to face meetings – for socializing, collaboration, conference, reflection, presentation, and learning – may occur and should (at the discretion of learner and/or suggestion of institution) be documented and tracked in the Learner Profile.  Here the invaluable contribution of the professional community, family, etc. is integrated with the learning community
The social learning environment model discussed above is meant to drive discussion about how social software could pragmatically fit within the reality we now find ourselves in. Educational institutions will adapt to social software but it will not happen quickly, and perhaps it shouldn’t. Certainly change theory advises us to go slow, and to bridge from the known to the unknown – or in this case from the LMS to social software. We shouldn’t concern ourselves with ultimate conceptions of the perfect social learning environment. We should look at this model as a tool, a mode of inquiry to better understand our situation and come up with more effective problem solving around how to make the best of the existing situation. Besides, perhaps it’s better to work on change from within.

 

 

 
 

http://elgg.net/michaelh/weblog/42040.html

http://elgg.net/michaelh/weblog/9710.html

In response to David's comments re Bill Fitzgerald's posting on Drupal Moodle integration with Elgg I had penned the following a few weeks ago and never got around to posting it. Sorry the graphic didn't display -will have to work on it.  

Can an LMS and a social software approach be combined and integrated to collectively enhance the distance education learning experience?

 Terry Anderson has proposed the concept of an educational social overlay network as a solution to how we can keep our traditional learning structure of the Learning Management Systems (LMS) but still move toward creating a richer, more interactive learning environment through the use of social software. Social software would act as an interface for these educational social overlay networks that would serve as “fluid, emergent and self organizing… that serve to connect and support social interaction among students enrolled in formal education programs.” (Anderson, 2005). Overlay network is computer science term used to describe a virtual indexing system that rides on top of a physical network.
Anderson quotes Maurya (2005) who argues that the most effective use of overlay networks is “for implicit discovery through context spaces, tags and feeds.” Context space refers to spontaneous or planned social spaces that invite opportunities for knowledge sharing and cooperation. Examples of social software tools that could provide context space include Elluminate, Writely and Wikkis. Tags include formal metatagging schemes (e.g.  Dublin Core) and folksonomie (informal) tags that are terms a learner would personally create to identify and categorize their learning artifacts and contributions to the social learning community. Feeds are forms of syndication (e.g. RSS) emerging from both formal feeds (e.g. academic journals) and informal publications (e.g. blogs, student portals). Anderson notes that these feeds are artifacts that are owned and retained by the student, not the institution via a posting in the LMS. (Anderson, 2005)

 Anderson (2005) has created a working example of a social network overlay by integrating a number of social software tools with the LMS Moodle in the delivery of his MDE663 course. He uses Elgg to create Me2U, a learning environment social software tool to provide blogging, group support and personal connections. While similar to an LMS, Elgg is open source, provides informal tagging, context space and feed that lives beyond the course. He uses Elluminate for real time voice communication and creating social presence and Furl to share bookmarked resources and poll knowledge. The LMS, Moodle, is used for structured content delivery, asynchronous interactivity and course administration.

 

Anderson (2005) identifies that the challenge in developing social network overlays and integrating with an LMS is in identifying which components of the learner’s life should reside in their personal web space and what components should reside in the webspace of the formal educational institution.

 

 When devising a social learning environment it is important to delineate where institutional and learner ownership reside, and where they overlap. Hiemstra and Brocket (1991) describe Mocker and Spear (1982)  model of lifelong learning based on who  controlled the learning process – the institution or the learner:

1. Formal learning: the institution controls both the objectives and the means of learning;

2. Nonformal learning: the learners control the objectives but not the means;

3. Informal learning: the learners control the means but not the objectives; and

4. Self-directed learning: the learners control both the objectives and the means.

This is a useful model to use to identify the levels of ownership for each layer and element in this Social Learning Environment Model.  

  The LMS layer is the formal learning delivery layer owned by the educational institution. The institution is responsible for the design, development, direction and implementation of the LMS. It is the most structured and controlled of all the layers. However, the structure must be open source to allow integration with the other application layers. The LMS has a predefined structure and content. The Learner Passport is the institutional profile of the student, and grants access to all resources made available through registration with the institution. It is a temporary layer to the Learner Profile, which is owned by and managed by the learner. The Learner Profile is part of the Portfolio Overlay and of the Presence Notifier.
The Portfolio Overlay has a degree of structure to it, but allows for learner (and initially institutional) customization. Portfolio overlays must be open source software to allow integration with the layer above and below it and be designed to meet learner needs not institutional requirements.  Primary learner needs include control over access permissions, connectivity tools that mine and document person to person relationships, depth of personal information to include and security controls such as the ability to restrict/modify personal profile information based on receiving audience. Meeting these needs will cause tension, but they are the basis for an equitable, fair relationship with learning providers. The learner must be respected as the ultimate guardian of their learning and personal information. If this is the learner’s first electronic profile then it is provided to the learner initially and expected to be jointly owned by the institution and learner until the learner’s academic studies are completed. At that time it becomes the property of the learner. Academic institutions (or consortiums) should sponsor open portals where alumnae without server space can “park” and access their profiles. Although the learner may not be enrolled in a course or program, they may still be informally learning and using their profile for personal, professional or work related purposes. Learning events may be episodic but the learning process is continuous and a learner’s association with past schools and cohorts should be maintained.

 

Ensuring the portfolio application is the property of the learner recognizes the possibility of continuous learning, formal and informal, beyond previous schooling. The Presence Notifier includes pushed and pulled forms of notification.

The Portfolio Overlay is situated between the Social and LMS overlay for three reasons. It is personal, it is mobile, and it is permanent (until a learner chooses to abandon it). The learner owns it, the learner will “take it away” when studies are completed with an institution, and it will live on even after the learner has ended their relationship with a particular educational institution. However the links established between the Social Overlay and the Portfolio Overlay may (and probably will) continue. This approach ensures that the learner can enjoy the “freedom of relationship” with whatever virtual or non-virtual entity they choose and the “freedom to own” their learning experiences.  

The Social Overlay is the overlay for social software. It may be Formal or Self Directed or both . That is, what web based services and tools the student uses, what they do and who they associate with may be guided directly or indirectly by the direction or guidance of the academic program they have chosen. Alternatively it may be totally self-directed by the learner, and the actions pursued may be for personal, professional, work-related, or academic reasons. It should be noted that this is the social space of the learner and they should experience it with the guidance, not direction of the institution. If, for example, the student has a personal weblog, it can be, at the learner’s discretion, be used as a social software for their course of study. The Filter and the Referrer are controlled by the educational institution in service of the learner and to feed assessment criteria. The Filter is required to confront the barrage of information and weed out the undesirable information, allow in the useful items and delete the spam. The filtering system must be customizable by the user. The Referrer tracks the activities a student engages in and the results of these activities can be used to improve learning networks and suggest further referral nodes. The Referrer would also be used to track activities that occur in the Associated Offline Activities Overlay.

The Associated Offline Activities Overlay represents possible consequences of the use of social software in meeting the needs of formal and informal learning. Face to face meetings – for socializing, collaboration, conference, reflection, presentation, and learning – may occur and should (at the discretion of learner and/or suggestion of institution) be documented and tracked in the Learner Profile.  Here the invaluable contribution of the professional community, family, etc. is integrated with the learning community
The social learning environment model discussed above is meant to drive discussion about how social software could pragmatically fit within the reality we now find ourselves in. Educational institutions will adapt to social software but it will not happen quickly, and perhaps it shouldn’t. Certainly change theory advises us to go slow, and to bridge from the known to the unknown – or in this case from the LMS to social software. We shouldn’t concern ourselves with ultimate conceptions of the perfect social learning environment. We should look at this model as a tool, a mode of inquiry to better understand our situation and come up with more effective problem solving around how to make the best of the existing situation. Besides, perhaps it’s better to work on change from within.

 

 

 
 

A Friendster for politics - is there a Canadian equivalent?

 

Here's an American online social network around politics. Essembly.com you sign up, add friends to your profile, and join groups about topics you're interested in. Then discuss and post resolutions that are put to other members, to vote and comment on.

 

Here in Alberta our opportunity to speak against the "third way health plan" is limited to e-mail. This is a tool we need to talk about the issues governments refuse to consult us on.

Wait a minute! I should create a community on Elgg! All we need is a resolutions tool and a polling tool.

 

 

http://elgg.net/michaelh/weblog/9712.html

A Friendster for politics - is there a Canadian equivalent?

 

Here's an American online social network around politics. Essembly.com you sign up, add friends to your profile, and join groups about topics you're interested in. Then discuss and post resolutions that are put to other members, to vote and comment on.

 

Here in Alberta our opportunity to speak against the "third way health plan" is limited to e-mail. This is a tool we need to talk about the issues governments refuse to consult us on.

Wait a minute! I should create a community on Elgg! All we need is a resolutions tool and a polling tool.

 

 

http://elgg.net/michaelh/weblog/42039.html

http://elgg.net/michaelh/weblog/9712.html

A Friendster for politics - is there a Canadian equivalent?

 

Here's an American online social network around politics. Essembly.com you sign up, add friends to your profile, and join groups about topics you're interested in. Then discuss and post resolutions that are put to other members, to vote and comment on.

 

Here in Alberta our opportunity to speak against the "third way health plan" is limited to e-mail. This is a tool we need to talk about the issues governments refuse to consult us on.

Wait a minute! I should create a community on Elgg! All we need is a resolutions tool and a polling tool.

 

 

http://elgg.net/michaelh/weblog/42799.html

http://elgg.net/michaelh/weblog/42048.html

http://choicelearning.blogspot.com/2006/03/net-equality-threatened.html

The World Wide Web will no longer be an "open information space" if broadband providers abandon Net neutrality, says WWW inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

In an interview with Canada's Toronto Star, he says he's, " 'very concerned' about North America phone and cable giants desire to collect so-called Web tolls from content suppliers and e-commerce companies that want assured access to broadband subscribers," ...if a supplier of downloaded video pays to connect to a particular set of consumers who are connected to a particular cable company. It would no longer be an open information space.
"The whole point of the Web is when you arrive it's more or less the same for everybody. That integrity is really essential. ... I'm very concerned."

Supporters of Net neutrality includeGoogle, Microsoft and Amazon who argue that resist the "idea of a tiered Internet - where how much one pays determines the level of access to an online consumer - arguing it would stymie online innovation."

http://elgg.net/michaelh/weblog/42048.html

http://choicelearning.blogspot.com/2006/03/net-equality-threatened.html

The World Wide Web will no longer be an "open information space" if broadband providers abandon Net neutrality, says WWW inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

In an interview with Canada's Toronto Star, he says he's, " 'very concerned' about North America phone and cable giants desire to collect so-called Web tolls from content suppliers and e-commerce companies that want assured access to broadband subscribers," ...if a supplier of downloaded video pays to connect to a particular set of consumers who are connected to a particular cable company. It would no longer be an open information space.
"The whole point of the Web is when you arrive it's more or less the same for everybody. That integrity is really essential. ... I'm very concerned."

Supporters of Net neutrality includeGoogle, Microsoft and Amazon who argue that resist the "idea of a tiered Internet - where how much one pays determines the level of access to an online consumer - arguing it would stymie online innovation."

http://elgg.net/michaelh/weblog/42809.html

http://choicelearning.blogspot.com/2006/03/net-equality-threatened.html

The World Wide Web will no longer be an "open information space" if broadband providers abandon Net neutrality, says WWW inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

In an interview with Canada's Toronto Star, he says he's, " 'very concerned' about North America phone and cable giants desire to collect so-called Web tolls from content suppliers and e-commerce companies that want assured access to broadband subscribers," ...if a supplier of downloaded video pays to connect to a particular set of consumers who are connected to a particular cable company. It would no longer be an open information space.
"The whole point of the Web is when you arrive it's more or less the same for everybody. That integrity is really essential. ... I'm very concerned."

Supporters of Net neutrality includeGoogle, Microsoft and Amazon who argue that resist the "idea of a tiered Internet - where how much one pays determines the level of access to an online consumer - arguing it would stymie online innovation."

http://choicelearning.blogspot.com/2006/03/net-equality-threatened.html

The World Wide Web will no longer be an "open information space" if broadband providers abandon Net neutrality, says WWW inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

In an interview with Canada's Toronto Star, he says he's, " 'very concerned' about North America phone and cable giants desire to collect so-called Web tolls from content suppliers and e-commerce companies that want assured access to broadband subscribers," ...if a supplier of downloaded video pays to connect to a particular set of consumers who are connected to a particular cable company. It would no longer be an open information space.
"The whole point of the Web is when you arrive it's more or less the same for everybody. That integrity is really essential. ... I'm very concerned."

Supporters of Net neutrality includeGoogle, Microsoft and Amazon who argue that resist the "idea of a tiered Internet - where how much one pays determines the level of access to an online consumer - arguing it would stymie online innovation."