| NET NEUTRALITY |
|
|||||
| December 2006 update:
Since originally publishing this piece in June 2006, a group called
SAVE THE INTERNET has come into existence and is doing a great job
of sharing accurate information on this important subject.
What, I hear you wondering, is 'net neutrality' and why should I care? Well… "The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online," according to Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. Chester and others, including just about every ‘local’ ISP, DSL and independent Internet Content provider in the country are alarmed by actions being forwarded by Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other ‘communications giants.’ "At the core of the new power held by phone and cable companies," Chester elaborates, "are tools delivering what is known as ‘deep packet inspection.’ With these tools, AT&T and others can readily know the packets of information you are receiving online -- from e-mail, to websites, to sharing of music, video and software downloads." While these ‘deep packet inspection’ (DPI) tracking technologies are part of the system that necessarily regulates routine ‘traffic flow’ on the Internet, Chester reports that another side of this same technology is being promoted by its developers to companies such as Comcast and Bell South as a means to ‘metering’ individual subscriber usage by application. That is, DPI effectively tracks and stores information on every move made by every computer user in cyberspace. In accord of existing (voluntary) industry standards regarding ‘net neutrality’ protocol, this data is used only to ensure that the data which travels across the Internet super-highway doesn’t bottleneck but stays free flowing. Those loyal to the egalitarian principles upon which the Internet and the World Wide Web were built are stumping for laws to be enacted which mandate the continued practice of ‘net neutrality.’ At the same time, those who look exclusively to exploit every nook and cranny of commercial for-profit interest are stumping to legally abolish any concept of ‘net neutrality’ so that:
As Chester explains it, if these ‘new and improved’ standards are implemented, "Those with the deepest pockets -- corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers -- would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications [ie: your family photo album, favorite political blog or even Gozarks] could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out." In addition, all of us – from professional content providers to individual Web surfers -- would pay more to do everything we routinely do on the Internet, including downloading videos, streaming broadcasts and even sending or receiving email, as megalith ‘service providers’ roll out "Silver, Gold & Platinum" subscription plans which bundle select ‘pay to play’ communications packages and thus limit or prohibit easy access to websites, programs, services and technologies which are not owned by or commercially affiliated with a particular multi-national marketing club. "They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks," Chester elaborates. "Free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine. "To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information highway," Chester summarizes, "some new media companies and public-interest groups are calling for new federal policies requiring ‘network neutrality’ on the Internet [and] have proposed that broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating against all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable companies would not be allowed to slow down competing or ‘undesirable’ content. Without proactive intervention, the values and issues that we care about -- civil rights, economic justice, the environment and fair elections -- will be further threatened by this push for corporate control. Imagine how the next presidential election would unfold if major political advertisers could make strategic payments to Comcast so that ads from Democratic and Republican candidates were more visible and user-friendly than ads of third-party candidates with less funds." What are others saying about this persnickety conundrum? Well…. Justin Bonds, president of Hyper Tech, an independent ISP and webhost provider -- "No one except the telcos/cable companies stand to gain anything from this. Why should businesses pay more to insure their product gets delivered in the best manner when we already pay bandwidth fees and the consumer already pays bandwidth fees? Now, they want to charge us to insure QOS (Quality of Service) over lines that should already get QOS. Hell, most of the time you don't get the bandwidth that you're already paying for! It's all about big companies throwing their weight around and the large telephone companies have plenty of weight to throw around - thanks to the consolidation of the phone industry." SiliconValley.com – "One of the contentions -- that the distribution of high quality video over the Internet will put undue strain on backbone networks unless telecoms are allowed to charge content providers additional fees to ensure its delivery -- is one we've all heard before and frankly it's getting a little tired. Content providers and consumers both already pay for the bandwidth they use -- the telecoms are charging for it at both ends of the same pipe. Nobody is getting a free ride. Why is it that the telecoms feel entitled to charge us a third time?" TrueMajority.org – "Congress is about to sell out the Internet by letting big phone and cable companies set up toll booths along the information superhighway. Companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending tens of millions in Washington to kill "network neutrality" -- a principle that keeps the Internet open to all. The issue moving quickly through Congress would let these companies become Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow -- and which won't load at all -- based on who pays them more. The rest of us will be detoured to the ‘slow lane’ -- clicking furiously and waiting for our favorite sites to download." Bill Lusk, ShopTheOzarks.com Webmaster -- This is a very import subject to all of us that use the Internet. It's one of those issues that if we sit back and ignore it in hopes it will go away, we will have to live with a miserable result that we are all going to HATE and wish that we had acted! If this is not stopped it will cost us more in the pocket than you can imagine. You think things are slow on the net now? We have to stop this from going forward." MoveOn – "Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These activities, plus MoveOn's online organizing ability, will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet [and] gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon doesn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to open more properly on your computer. If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection money to dominant Internet providers or risks that online activism tools don't work for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection money or risk that their websites process slowly on your computer." Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet and Google's "Chief Internet Evangelist," recently wrote to Congress in support of preserving Network Neutrality: "My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online." Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media Access Project and Consumers Union have also expressed strong support for the continuation of Network Neutrality practices and Robert Reich, professor of public policy at the Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley and secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, comprehensively iterates the case:Termed in perfect Orwellian prose, the ‘Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006’ [is] the first real battle in the coming War of Internet Democracy. On one side are the companies that pipe the Internet into our homes and businesses. These include telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon and cable companies like Comcast. Call them the pipe companies. On the other side are the people and businesses that send Internet content through the pipes. Some are big outfits like Yahoo, Google and Amazon, big financial institutions like Bank of America and Citigroup and giant media companies soon to pump lots of movies and TV shows on to the Internet. But most content providers are little guys. They’re mom-and-pop operations specializing in, say, antique egg-beaters or Brooklyn Dodgers memorabilia. They’re anarchists, kooks and zealots peddling all sorts of crank ideas They’re personal publishers and small-time investigators. They include my son’s comedy troupe—streaming new videos on the Internet every week. They also include gazillions of bloggers—including my humble little blog and maybe even yours. Until now, a basic principle of the Internet has been that the pipe companies can’t discriminate among content providers. Everyone who puts stuff up on the Internet is treated exactly the same. The net is neutral. But now the pipe companies want to charge the content providers, depending on how fast and reliably the pipes deliver the content. Presumably, the biggest content providers would pay the most money, leaving the little content people in the slowest and least-reliable parts of the pipe. The pipe companies claim unless they start charging for speed and reliability, they won’t have enough money to invest in the next generation of networks. This is an absurd argument. The pipes are already making lots of money off consumers who pay them for being connected to the Internet. The pipes figure they can make even more money discriminating between big and small content providers because the big guys have deep pockets and will pay a lot to travel first class. The small guys who pay little or nothing will just have to settle for what’s left. Theoretically, this is efficient. Sellers who also have something of a monopoly (as do the Internet pipe companies) can make a killing. But even if it’s efficient, it’s not democratic. At a time in our nation’s history when wealth and power are becoming more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, it’s been the one forum in which all voices are equal. The Internet has been the place where Davids can take on Goliaths, where someone without resources but with brains and guts and information can skewer the high and mighty. Verizon’s chief Washington lobbyist recently warned the financial services industry that if it supports net neutrality, it won’t get the sophisticated data links it will need in the future. The pipes are also quietly reassuring the big content providers that they can pass along the fees to their customers. Will the big content providers fall for it? Price discrimination is as old as capitalism. Instead of charging everyone the same for the same product or service [think health care, automobiles and education], sellers divide things up according to grade or quality. Buyers willing to pay the most can get the best, while other buyers get lesser quality, according to how much they pay.The imposition of ‘sliding scale fees’ for consumers and charging content providers for different ‘levels’ of service-availability is, of course, seen by some as a good and proper thing. "Price discrimination drives the market-based capitalist economy" asserts Adam Thierer of the (some would say ‘doublespeak-titled’) Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF). Thus the real question we must answer, from my point of view, is not simply how we want the Internet to work. The question is 'How do we want the world to operate?' IMHO it is time for us to make a purposeful shift into a people-based cooperative economic system, recognizing this as the bedrock of a culturally sane and environmentally sustainable economy that works for the health and well being of everyone on planet earth. Related links:
|
With Special Thanks & Much Appreciation to Our Website Development & Internet Marketing Clients, most especially for their toleration of our sometimes extraordinary and routinely unique editorial point of view... with which they may not always agree and yet, being true to the spirit of mutual respect, honor our differences amicably.
|
