Threats to Net Neutrality

[doctorgonzo]

There are discussions currently going on in Washington over "net neutrality": preventing broadband companies from selectively charging websites for access to their network. Unfortunately, some large broadband providers like SBC don't like the fact that you can get Google videos, streaming music, or lots of other content from non-SBC providers for free. So they are trying to rewrite the laws.

I just stumbled across a website called Public Knowledge (http://www.publicknowledge.org/) that is fighting these efforts. So if you are interested in this issue, check them out; their blog looks like it is full of up-to-date information.

Just to give you an idea of how united people are about keeping net neutrality, Amazon.com, eBay, Google, IAC, M$, and Yahoo! are together expressing their concern (http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/172) over what Congress might do to prevent 'net users from accessing their online content.

[David M]

Looks like its time for Amazon etc to send their lobbyists to Washington and get those senators some steak dinners, a $300 bottle of wine and a pat on the back. Maybe a little campaign contribution on the side? ;)

I agree, the internet has become sacred in a way and to start doing this would give those who can afford it the upper hand.

[786ARS]

the internet is the only impartial and neutral place, keep it that way.

[mbossman2]

i am torn...

part of me says: Those companies spent a significant amount of money to install and maintain these lines, and if they want to charge a tiered system to give preference for their direct customers over other folks. Knock yourself out.

another part of me says: telco lines are pretty close to public utilities and should be open to all with the same level of access.

another part of me says: that the net is built and operated on a sense of naivete. That this great, wonderful tool and all the information/content on it are free for the taking and belong to no one.

another part says: information is a powerful thing and should be made available to as many folks as possible.

It is a tough decision and, like many decisions of this magnitude, it will have wide ranging implications. (IE: the concept of private property and ownership. What are the rights that go along with ownership? Can they be "voided" and under what circumstances? by whom? what about compensation?)

[doctorgonzo]

These are tough issues, true. But I think it would help to imagine what the demise of net neutrality would entail. It's actually not that hard, because the fact that the Internet is so open and free today is a result of luck and companies not realizing what it actually was.

Think back 10-15 years when the big BBS systems were coming online, but before there was the Internet. I'm talking about AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, and so on. It was a couple years before I actually visited a web page after getting AOL; most of the time was spent in chat rooms, downloading shareware and freeware games from their libraries, and using IM.

So what if this continued? What if the 'net died on the vine, and we were living with the situation of the early 90s still today? What if there were a half-dozen or so large BBSs that had no interoperability? I doubt that the Internet would be anything close to what it is today. Sure, a lot of things would still be around, but it would have a very limited audience. AOL might offer a forum for PC help like PC Mech, but it would only be available to AOL users. Compuserve might have an online auction site, but just for Compuserve users. MSN might have an online book store, but only for MSN users. eBay, Amazon, even Google might not exist, because the online world would be so fractured and each BBS would jealously guard their own turf. Broadband would hardly exist, because there wouldn't be much need; community websites like Youtube, Flickr, or any other websites with a lot of content probably wouldn't be around.

The IM world is bad enough; I've got accounts with MSN, AOL, ICQ, Google Talk...and you either have to have each client running or get something like Trillian or GAIM. Imagine if this fracturing extended to the web!

[mbossman2]

yes, the web is an important asset, but is it so important that we are willing to put a serious dent in a right (of ownership) that is one of the cornerstones of western civilization?

the 2 issues are biggies, no doubt, but the decision(s) made here and in the near term future on this subject will have long and far reaching implications, that will take us down unforeseen paths in the future. I am reluctant to make a snap decision based upon emotion, but rather one made after careful consideration, reflection and educatied foresight.

a lawyer i know always says:

When 2 "rights" collide, you very quickly determine which one truly is a right and which one isn't....

[blue60007]

Didn't AARP join the fight for net neutrality?

[pam123]

It looks like net neutrality is going to win it : http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6057789.html?tag=nl.e550

[mbossman2]

It looks like net neutrality is going to win it : http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6057789.html?tag=nl.e550

my gut says that the 1st enforcement will get challenged and end up in front of the supreme court...dangerous game letting the government dictate the use of private property. while there is precedent, the current backlash on the Kelo decision may tip the balance.

[pam123]

I spoke too soon the net neutrality amendment didn't make it : http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060405-6534.html

[Xayd]

coulda swore we addressed this with anti-trust charges in 1983.

funny how campaign contributions and a little money laundering can make people forget.

[doctorgonzo]

Just an update, here's a website set up to fight for net neutrality: www.savetheinternet.com

It has some interesting information, including examples of what happens when you don't have neutrality. For example, AOL "accidentally" blocked e-mails that contained links to an anti-AOL website. Oopsie.

[pam123]

Thanks for the link.
As for the AOL blocked e-mails it turns out it was an accident : http://blog.eweek.com/blogs/larry_seltzer/archive/2006/04/14/9069.aspx

It does say alot about the light they're regarded in though.

[doctorgonzo]

Oh, I have no doubt that the AOL snafu was accidental. I would find it hard to believe that it was completely random, though; maybe a joke or a test that got out of hand.

The other examples that are given are real, though, and they are quite troubling. I think it's pretty ironic, though, that most people rightly criticize China for blocking web content based on political or other beliefs, while getting rid of net neutrality would allow ISPs to do the exact same thing in the U.S.

[pam123]

You're more charitable then I am, I thought it was incompetence.

I wonder what these guys really think they're doing.
Am I the only one noticing the potential self-destructiveness of what they're doing?

[786ARS]

This is one of the more enfuriating issues that arise in capitalist societies, a million dollars has more power that the voices of a million average people.

[blue60007]

Am I the only one noticing the potential self-destructiveness of what they're doing?

Nope.

[David M]

This is one of the more enfuriating issues that arise in capitalist societies, a million dollars has more power that the voices of a million average people.

Sure beats the alternative.

[786ARS]

Sure beats the alternative.

That's true, stuck between a rock and a hard place

[pam123]

It's not over till it's over.

This from today's NYT :

May 2, 2006
Editorial
Keeping a Democratic Web

"Net neutrality" is a concept that is still unfamiliar to most Americans, but it keeps the Internet democratic. Cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service are talking about creating a two-tiered Internet, in which Web sites that pay them large fees would get priority over everything else. Opponents of these plans are supporting Net-neutrality legislation, which would require all Web sites to be treated equally. Net neutrality recently suffered a setback in the House, but there is growing hope that the Senate will take up the cause.

One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page. But this democratic Internet would be in danger if the companies that deliver Internet service changed the rules so that Web sites that pay them money would be easily accessible, while little-guy sites would be harder to access, and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they do not like.

That would be a financial windfall for Internet service providers, but a disaster for users, who could find their Web browsing influenced by whichever sites paid their service provider the most money. There is a growing movement of Internet users who are pushing for legislation to make this kind of discrimination impossible. It has attracted supporters ranging from MoveOn.org to the Gun Owners of America. Grass-roots political groups like these are rightly concerned that their online speech could be curtailed if Internet service providers were allowed to pick and choose among Web sites.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee defeated a good Net-neutrality amendment last week. But the amendment got more votes than many people expected, suggesting that support for Net neutrality is beginning to take hold in Congress. In the Senate, Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, and Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, are drafting a strong Net-neutrality bill that would prohibit broadband providers from creating a two-tiered Internet. Senators who care about the Internet and Internet users should get behind it.

Keep an eye out and let your senator know that you are.
Every time it comes up it's going to be harder for them to give AT&T what it's wants, no matter how large the campaign contribution.

[Kareeser]

Didn't we learn anything from "Nineteen Eighty-Four"?