Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDon't Fence in the Web!
The genius of the Internet, from the distant moment of its inception to the present day, has been its tendency toward openness, freedom and equality. On the great frontier of digital communications, there have been no fences. Every website has been treated equally. Once an American logs on, he or she has known that it is as easy to get to Wal-Mart Watch's dissident www.walmartwatch.com site as it is to reach the retail giant's corporate site. It is as easy to go to visit George Bush's official White House location on the Web as it is to visit the folks at www.afterdowningstreet.org, who would like very much to remove the president and everyone he rode in with.
In 2005, however, the Federal Communications Commission, began to attack the Net Neutrality rules that for decades have guaranteed a level playing field for every web site. They did so under pressure from "old-media" telecommunications corporations -- mostly in the cable and phone sectors -- that want to "own" the web. If Net Neutrality, the first amendment of the Internet, is completely eliminated in the manner favored by the telecommunications giants, then cable and phone companies can make a fortune by providing high-speed connections to sites that pay for the the service while discriminating against sites that do not pay.
Eliminating Net Neutrality cuts off the potential of the internet, by opening the way for colonization of the World Wide Web by telecommunications corporations that would amplify the voices of the wealthy and powerful while they effectively silence dissent.
The fear of this prospect has led more than 1.6 million Americans and 850 different groups on the political left and right to call for the FCC and Congress to establish rules that reinstate and protect Net Neutrality.
How intense is public support for Net Neutrality?
Tens of thousands of Americans sent comments to the FCC during the latest period of official inquiry by the agency that ended Monday. More than 95 percent of the comments called on the FCC to establish rules to prevent cable and phone companies from favoring paying Web sites or services over those that do not have the resources to buy a place on the right side of the walls erected by media monopolists.
"We see that thousands of people have submitted comments describing how a free and open Internet benefits consumers and telling you the discriminatory practices planned by their Internet service providers would substantially harm their online experience," U.S. Senators Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who have sponsored the bipartisan "Internet Freedom Preservation Act," wrote to FCC chair Kevin Martin. "We hope you take note of these thousands of public comments urging you to protect Internet freedom."
Will Martin and the Bush-appointed FCC majority listen to the people who are saying they want the internet to realize its full potential, of will they allow their corporate sponsors to start erecting fences on the Web? That's the billion dollar question -- at least for the cable and phone companies.
It is, first and foremost, a democracy question: Will the FCC, which is supposed to serve the people by promoting open, freewheeling public discourse respond to the overwhelming demand for Net Neutrality? Or will it close the frontier and subdivide what were once vast open spaces into mansions for those who can pay and hovels for those who cannot?
At a time when American democracy is under assault on so many fronts, the internet has been the one place where freedom really did seem to be on the march. The only message the FCC can take from the great mass of comments it has received is that the people want that march to continue. "Internet users want competitive and affordable services. They don't want phone and cable companies to manipulate the free flow of information and distort the Web's level playing field," says Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press, which has coordinated the SavetheInternet.com coalition's fight to keep the World Wide Web wide open. "Now," says Karr, "the FCC must heed demands from people of every walk of life and enforce full Net Neutrality."
John Nichols is a co-founder of Free Press and the co-author with Robert W. McChesney of TRAGEDY & FARCE: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy -- The New Press.
© 2007 The Nation
10 Comments so far
Show AllIf they take away my Net Neutrality, I'm out of here. And I challenge anyone who wants to show corporate America how they really feel about freedom to completely walk away. Let them sell and advertise to each other on the internet without us... see how long that lasts.
Live free or LEAVE.
Don't forget--the internet IS OURS! We paid for it with OUR TAX DOLLARS!!!!
It belongs to us--not corporations!!!!
As others have pointed out, there are some misconceptions here, and 'Net Neutrality' is really a battle between corporate tyrannies. Generally, the Internet (ARPANET) was designed by the military so that nodes would be available after being destroyed by weaponry. So, out of an original solution for packeting and transmitting data with reliability; in the case of warfare, we have developed a profoundly more elaborate system of communication.
The benefits are large, but it's long been known that the content that most people actually get to, or do see, is a much smaller controlled amount, then it otherwise could be. The fact that you pay your ISP was an early defeat, but isn't considered as such now. Privacy was also one of the original casualties in the quest for profit. Also not considered, or discussed as much, is that anonymity is basically illegal. Information is power and it is tightly controlled.
Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
Sources:
Buzzflash.com, July 18, 2005_Title: "Web of Deceit: How Internet Freedom Got the Federal Ax, and Why Corporate News Censored the Story"_Author: Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.
Student Researchers: Lauren Powell, Brett Forest, and Zoe Huffman_Faculty Evaluator: Andrew Roth, Ph.D.
Throughout 2005 and 2006, a large underground debate raged regarding the future of the Internet. More recently referred to as "network neutrality," the issue has become a tug of war with cable companies on the one hand and consumers and Internet service providers on the other. Yet despite important legislative proposals and Supreme Court decisions throughout 2005, the issue was almost completely ignored in the headlines until 2006.1 And, except for occasional coverage on CNBC's Kudlow & Kramer, mainstream television remains hands-off to this day (June 2006).2_Most coverage of the issue framed it as an argument over regulation-but the term "regulation" in this case is somewhat misleading. Groups advocating for "net neutrality" are not promoting regulation of internet content. What they want is a legal mandate forcing cable companies to allow internet service providers (ISPs) free access to their cable lines (called a "common carriage" agreement). This was the model used for dial-up internet, and it is the way content providers want to keep it. They also want to make sure that cable companies cannot screen or interrupt internet content without a court order.
Those in favor of net neutrality say that lack of government regulation simply means that cable lines will be regulated by the cable companies themselves. ISPs will have to pay a hefty service fee for the right to use cable lines (making internet services more expensive). Those who could pay more would get better access; those who could not pay would be left behind. Cable companies could also decide to filter Internet content at will.
On the other side, cable company supporters say that a great deal of time and money was spent laying cable lines and expanding their speed and quality.3 They claim that allowing ISPs free access would deny cable companies the ability to recoup their investments, and maintain that cable providers should be allowed to charge. Not doing so, they predict, would discourage competition and innovation within the cable industry.
Cable supporters like the AT&T-sponsored Hands Off the Internet website assert that common carriage legislation would lead to higher prices and months of legal wrangling. They maintain that such legislation fixes a problem that doesn't exist and scoff at concerns that phone and cable companies will use their position to limit access based on fees as groundless. Though cable companies deny plans to block content providers without cause, there are a number of examples of cable-initiated discrimination.
In March 2005, the FCC settled a case against a North Carolina-based telephone company that was blocking the ability of its customers to use voice-over-Internet calling services instead of (the more expensive) phone lines.4 In August 2005, a Canadian cable company blocked access to a site that supported the cable union in a labor dispute.5 In February 2006, Cox Communications denied customers access to the Craig's List website. Though Cox claims that it was simply a security error, it was discovered that Cox ran a classified service that competes with Craig's List.6_court decisions
In June of 1999, the Ninth District Court ruled that AT&T would have to open its cable network to ISPs (AT&T v. City of Portland). The court said that Internet transmissions, interactive, two-way exchanges, were telecommunication offerings, not a cable information service (like CNN) that sends data one way. This decision was overturned on appeal a year later.
Recent court decisions have extended the cable company agenda further. On June 27, 2005, The United States Supreme Court ruled that cable corporations like Comcast and Verizon were not required to share their lines with rival ISPs (National Cable & Telecommunications Association vs. Brand X Internet Services).7 Cable companies would not have to offer common carriage agreements for cable lines the way that telephone companies have for phone lines._According to Dr. Elliot Cohen, the decision accepted the FCC assertion that cable modem service is not a two-way telecommunications offering, but a one-way information service, completely overturning the 1999 ruling. Meanwhile, telephone companies charge that such a decision gives an unfair advantage to cable companies and are requesting that they be released from their common carriage requirement as well.
Legislation_On June 8, the House rejected legislation (HR 5273) that would have prevented phone and cable companies from selling preferential treatment on their networks for delivery of video and other data-heavy applications. It also passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act (HR 5252), which supporters said would encourage innovation and the construction of more high-speed Internet lines. Internet neutrality advocates say it will allow phone and cable companies to cherry-pick customers in wealthy neighborhoods while eliminating the current requirement demanded by most local governments that cable TV companies serve low-income and minority areas as well. 8
Comment: As of June 2006, the COPE Act is in the Senate. Supporters say the bill supports innovation and freedom of choice. Interet neutrality advocates say that its passage would forever compromise the Internet. Giant cable companies would attain a monopoly on high-speed, cable Internet. They would prevent poorer citizens from broadband access, while monitoring and controlling the content of information that can be accessed.
UPDATE BY ELLIOT D. COHEN, PH.D._Despite the fact that the Court's decision in Brand X marks the beginning of the end for a robust, democratic Internet, there has been a virtual MSM blackout in covering it. As a result of this decision, the legal stage has been set for further corporate control. Currently pending in Congress is the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006"(HR 5252), fueled by strong telecom corporative lobbies and introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX). This Act, which fails to adequately protect an open and neutral Internet, includes a "Title II-Enforcement of Broadband Policy Statement" that gives the FCC "exclusive authority to adjudicate any complaint alleging a violation of the broadband policy statement or the principles incorporated therein." With the passage of this provision, courts will have scant authority to challenge and overturn FCC decisions regarding broadband. Since under current FCC Chair Kevin Martin, the FCC is moving toward still further deregulation of telecom and media companies, the likely consequence is the thickening of the plot to increase corporate control of the Internet. In particular, behemoth telecom corporations like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T want to set up toll booths on the Internet. If these companies get their way, content providers with deep pockets will be afforded optimum bandwidth while the rest of us will be left spinning in cyberspace. No longer will everyone enjoy an equal voice in the freest and most comprehensive democratic forum ever devised by humankind.
As might be expected, none of these new developments are being addressed by the MSM. Among media activist organizations attempting to stop the gutting of the free Internet is The Free Press (http://www.freepress.net/), which now has an aggressive "Save the Internet" campaign
There's a fundamental misconception being presented here, and I'm not sure if John Nichols (who I respect tremendously) understands this. Orbit7er aluded to this above.
Web sites *ALREADY* have to pay more for more bandwidth. I know because I've set up many high traffic web sites, and I've had to negotiate these deals with the ISPs. Net neutrality has nothing to do with the ability of providers to set fees for bandwidth usage. They already have and constantly use this capability.
Net neutrality refers to the concept of forcing providors to service traffic in a way that is neutral with respect to what that traffic is, where it is going to, and where it is coming from. This is extremely important both for entrepreneurs (big providors cannot quash start-ups who complete with them), as well as an outlet for information that is outside of the MSMs range of discourse.
The internet being founded as an information highway to share knowledge throughout the academic world (at least this is my recollection) is the greatest venue of all times. The WWW, should remain a fair and neutral playing field. I too being the little "gal" was able to forge a small jewelry business to enable me to travel once in awhile - enjoying what nature has to offer - nothing extravagant. I would never have been able to work full time for medical benefits and open a store. I could not afford to run a store on a real street. Were it not for the current affordable costs of my site, I would not be able to do what I do. Not to mention it allows me to still believe I can work for myself and my hard work pays off without ripping anyone else off. My goal is to offer a special touch to customers. Treating a customer like family seems to be a thing of the past for so many companies. Call it romantic nonsense or nostalgia but it's a good feeling for all of us. The internet as we now know it gives one the hope that hard work rewards merit. The most important benefit is the exchange of information and ideas around the globe. The global community is getting very tired of being "kicked" to the curve for doing the right thing. It's up to us to "just do it" and stop complaining. It is time for a "we can do" attitude and get off our lazy butts and act - else we all lose (including the cooperations). The corporate machine is greasing the wheel and gobbling up companies like the old packman game. We are running out of power pills - it's time to join hands and stand up. We have the power. The machine can only run on our consumption. Amen!
Let's get this straight - this is really about DOUBLE CHARGING! Everybody already pays for the Internet and you pay more for more bandwidth. Consumers pay for their access. Host sites pay for theirs. If you pay more you get more bandwidth and hence faster downloads for your Web clients.
What this is really about is Internet providers controlling the CONTENT and trying to charge extra on top of existing Internet access charges to enforce it and enable Telecomm companies to get all the $$$ from advertising going to Google etc.
I.e. piling on charges to make more $$$.
Double charging pure and simple...
i fear, too, that a free internet will succumb to corporate interests. it has too much potential for danger to the ruling class to be in the hands of the average joe and josephine. heaven forbid that we all connect with one another and (oh great dream of mine) rise up and revolt. just as we now must take our newspapers and broadcast news reports in a form filtered through corporate interests, an internet filtered through AT&T and other big biz will become just another tool of those in power.
I think they will take it away. And in response a few will start committing true civil disobediance. And those few will get whacked. The rest will then shut up and that will be that.
We're Fishes in the Sea.
The Internet saved me from a life of low-paid manual labor.
I was a lawyer who was destroyed because of a disagreement with Federal drug fascists about whether cannabis has medicinal value. After being released from a 5-year prison sentence, I scratched out a living as a carpenter and mechanic for 5 years. Then I received in the mail an offer to try a legal-research service free for a few months. I accepted it, and found that I am spectacularly suited to doing legal research & writing using online tools, which were not available when I "went in" in 1995.
The result has been that I now have a much-better paying job, and am on track to get my license back in a couple of years.
THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF I HAD HAD TO PAY BIG FEES TO ACCESS THE VARIOUS WEBSITES I USED TO RELEARN INTERNET-BASED LEGAL SKILLS. I simply could not afford it. It also would not have happened without the tools available online without charge, or at a very reasonable price. A LOT of what I access is in out-of-the-way websites which are small and surely could not afford big access fees.
I am only one example of the many benefits which a neutral internet provides. ("Benefits" from my point of view anyway--I am sure the drug fascists, like fascists everywhere, would prefer I eat shit and die. But they feel that way about anyone who is not a pig or a pig's slave.) The economic benefits alone are worth maintaining net neutrality.
Plus, the the net affords the opportunity for people to come together to resist fascist imperialism; and this gives the world's people a real chance to pull democracy and peace out of the jaws of totalitarianism and destruction.
But, of course, that's the precise reason why the korporatists want to squash the net--totalitarianism & destruction "r" them...