|
|
Free speech and the future of the Internet are at stake in the growing political battle over “net neutrality,” according to the Save the Internet Coalition.
The telecom giants, including Time Warner and Verizon, say they’re concerned that a glut of high-bandwidth digital traffic will soon clog the Information Superhighway. Their answer is offering preferential service to companies that pay for it and a lower grade of service to those that don’t. Net neutrality activists allege that some sites might be blocked completely.
To extend the metaphor of the superhighway a bit further, imagine if Interstate 75 had a legal, high-speed lane where cars could go 85 m.p.h. and that drivers must pay a regular fee to drive in that lane. The rich would get to work faster than the poor, and businesses would be saddled with higher shipping costs, forcing some smaller operations out of the market.
‘Controlling the space’
Perhaps the hypothetical freeway becomes completely privatized and only those communities that can afford the access fee would have entrance and exit ramps. Certain neighborhoods (certain Web sites) would be unreachable by your car (your computer), and you’d have to settle on another community, the one that paid for an access ramp.
“Net neutrality” describes how information travels on the Internet. It has been the guiding principle of how data has been moved through the Internet since its inception, says the Save the Internet Coalition.
The Internet is a dumb network and merely connects one device to another, moving data from place to place without preference.
Bills such as the Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act could change this, effectively adding a traffic control architecture to the Internet that would prioritize some data over others.
“The payers, those who are able to pay, will be able to consolidate the market,” says Tom Bishop, a media activist and executive director of Media Bridges, Cincinnati’s public access television station.
Bishop provides, as an example, a typical search on the theoretical limited-access Internet. He says that if you search for used books today, Amazon and Half Price Books are usually at the top of the search results. A pay-for-play Internet would push to the bottom of the list a company that doesn’t pay the Internet Service Provider (ISP). Bishop says that’s not good for business and doesn’t serve the public interest.
“They claim this is about innovation and competition, but it’s not,” he says. “It gives the private companies the right to be the gatekeeper.”
Net neutrality was outside most people’s lexicons until the congressional debate over the COPE Act recently heated up.
In April the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the COPE Act, and net neutrality was shot down. Bishop says he’s heard that any amendment to the act that includes net neutrality would be a “poison pill,” as all the corporate lobbyists would withdraw their support.
U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Cleveland), the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, says he solidly opposes the COPE Act and is very concerned that its passage might block access to sites that don’t pay a toll.
“It’s so important that people have access, and I’m afraid, if we don’t do this right, the use of the Internet will not be free,” he says. “The great thing about the Internet is that it’s basically free to anyone. I think that the Baby Bells have an interest in controlling the space. … It’s sort of typical behavior for corporations to want more control.”
Yet it’s not at all about control but rather maintaining efficiency of the Internet, according to Mark Harrad, spokesman for Time Warner Cable. Harrad says net neutrality is “a solution looking for a problem.”
Besides, there are already tiers of service on the market today, he says. Road Runner users can pay more for faster connections, popular among online gamers. The allegations that this is a First Amendment issue are unfounded, Harrad says.
‘Barriers for entry’
Save the Internet’s Craig Aaron sees it differently.
“Ultimately it is a big threat to how we all use the Internet,” he says.
Corporate giants want to change the very nature of the Net from a truly level playing field, a meritocracy, to something more like the cable television service we have today, Aaron says.
“I think the customer is also going to feel it in the wallet,” he says. “There’s not going be this competitive pressure that drives prices down and improves things.”
Aaron says he envisions an Internet that allows users to download a big name, commercial movie instantly “while everyone else has herky-jerky video.”
The preferential treatment wouldn’t be limited to video, he says. Internet telephone companies might also be blocked from consumers’ view and, disturbingly, messages that are out of line with an ISP’s corporate vision might be censored.
The Save the Internet campaign cites several instances of telecom companies asserting themselves in this way, alleging that in 2004 North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked customers from using any rival Web-based phone service and in April Time Warner’s AOL blocked e-mails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy campaign opposing the company’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
“I think it’s going to be a little more subtle than that, at least initially,” Aaron says.
Aaron says the movement against Internet privatization is on an uphill climb but gaining momentum. Ultimately, they’ll try to convince the politicians that it’s an issue of free speech and public access and that net neutrality is a pro-business issue.
“We feel we’re on the right side of corporate interests, broadly speaking,” Aaron says. “We want the kind of opportunity where two college students come up with Google. … If they take away this Internet freedom, that opportunity simply won’t be there anymore. … The barriers for entry will be made extremely high because the cable and phone company executives will be picking the winners and losers.” ©
This article appears in May 17-23, 2006.
