Congress Should Act to Preserve Net Neutrality
The Internet has spawned tremendous choice and innovation for consumers and businesses.
But that would change if the phone and cable giants played favorites in who uses their broadband networks, and how they’re used.
That’s why U.S. policy-makers must protect the principle of an open and free Internet. Under this idea of “network neutrality” that has long prevailed, any Internet user has unrestricted access to all Web sites, content and services without interference from network providers.
Last week, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., introduced legislation to enshrine this principle in law and prevent network operators from discriminating against certain types of Internet traffic. The “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” deserves passage.
The Net neutrality debate has taken on new significance with the explosion in Internet video, which chews up huge amounts of bandwidth. A video surge recently prompted Comcast to block or delay some video traffic from file-sharing networks like BitTorrent, actions Comcast says are needed to prevent bandwidth hogs from crowding out other users.
The video boom also is prompting broadband providers to consider pricing plans based on amount of use, a step toward tiered service that undermines Net neutrality.
The Markey bill would update federal communications law to protect against “discrimination” and “degradation” of content by network operators. It would give the Federal Communications Commission a clearer mandate to protect neutrality. It would also require the agency to conduct public broadband “summits” and to assess whether broadband services are ensuring an open Internet.
Like the telegraph and telephone before it, the Internet is a public medium that should be free of undue interference from network operators. This principle has made the Internet an unrivaled platform for innovation, allowing anyone with new ideas, opinions or businesses to access the Web on equal footing. That’s what gave rise to Amazon, eBay, Google, Internet phone calling, file-sharing and now Internet video.
Keeping the Internet neutral is key to U.S. leadership in the digital economy. We should not take this bedrock principle for granted.
Copyright 2008 San Jose Mercury News
This is a “sleeper” issue, folks. It’s not cuddly like a baby seal. It doesn’t stir outrage, as does torture. But it is possibly more important than any of these issues, because it will limit your ability to inform and be informed on such issues.
I am not against “pay per use.” Try not to confuse that with “net neutrality.” If someone wants to download videos 24/7/365, it’s not unreasonable for them to pay more.
But the forces against net neutrality are more insidious. They want the interests of commercial enterprises to come before those of Aunt Millie’s email from Iowa — or messages from non-profits, like Common Dreams.
If they have their way, the 24/7/365 downloader can download all the crap they want, as long as it comes from upper-tier providers, like Disney, or MSN, which will assumedly be either paid content, or laced with commercials.
Small ISPs who can’t afford to pay the upper tier rates will be locked out, or will have to take drastic bandwidth reduction efforts. Forget downloading political movies from http://www.InformationClearingHouse.info — they won’t be able to afford top-tier service.
It’s nothing less than a wholesale gift of the Internet to commercial interests. Good-bye to the blossoming of direct democracy that the Internet has provided.
Net Neutrality is not one of those hot button issues until after the fact and then it is too late. Proactive is a key word in this. If we allow corporations to restrict access to the net to increase their monopoly positions and profits, then we have ourselves to blame for not acting before the fact.
Uh huh. I’m sure the “people’s representatives” will be moved to act as the should on some issue, some time, but don’t hold your breath.
Yes, JAN STEINMAN you are 100% correct, a real “sleeper issue”,
that will have us all waking up in a nightmare if we do not act responsibly to protect what left of free speech.
… … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … & … ML King … … Inspiration … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man’s need but not for man’s greed »
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — MLK