posted July 22, 2006 12:11 PM
Last rough draft - Position Statement:
NET NEUTRALITY vs. NET NEUTERING
The public Internet should be stupid. It is too risky to do otherwise. Net neutrality is the principle that you should be able to access whatever web content or services you choose, without any interference from your Internet service provider. Right now, no law or rule protects citizens facing obstacles to getting access to the information on the Internet. The COPE bill - “Communities, Opportunities, Promotion and Enhancement Act” - would make it impossible for those protections to be written into law or rule, making all of us vulnerable to big companies who would like to "own" the Internet and mine it for profit. Some companies like Verizon and Comcast have already announced plans to create a two-tiered Internet, where some websites and services would travel in the "fast lane" - for a fee, of course - and the rest would be relegated to a "slow lane."
What I as well as others think is that “The Internet must be free and open to all. It has changed the way we communicate with each other, fueled economic growth, and become a vehicle for democratic discourse. Organizations, activists, politicians, political parties, candidates, non-for profits, and common citizens use the Internet to communicate. The Internet is an effective tool for promoting business, help with innovative processes, and democracy because all of us can access the information we care about. Any plans to charge those who have websites or search engines, or to offer some types information or services at higher speeds than others, endangers the Internet as we know it. Failure to preserve net neutrality would put small businesses, nonprofits and entrepreneurs at a significant disadvantage and stifle innovation on the Internet. No company should have the power to block, impede or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic. Congressman Ed Markey recently proposed a net neutrality amendment, but the committee defeated it by a vote of 34-22.
As you can well imagine, COPE, supported by both the FCC and broadband providers, has huge implications for free expression and open access to the internet.
Telephone and cable companies, the owners of the wires, fibers, cables, and spectrum must remain “common carriers” under U.S. law, and not be viewed as “information services” for purposes of connectivity.
Cable companies act as “telecommunications services” when they provide broadband access to the internet. Under federal law, “telecommunications services” must comply with an extensive set of common carrier requirements that limit their ability to control the availability of information carried over their networks. “Information Services” are not required to obey these requirements.
IF the FCC and broadband providers get their way, it would permit cable broadband service providers, which are quickly becoming the dominant suppliers of internet access and rarely face competition, to leverage their market power to control access to and use of the internet. Control of internet access by monopolistic service providers threatens vital free speech and privacy interests by allowing censorship, monitoring, and efforts to steer internet users to favored sources of information. In ruling as it did, the FCC contradicted the plain language of the law and disregarded its statutory duty to consider the impact of its decisions on free speech.
I will now speak to additional reasons for supporting Net Neutrality and why telecom and broadband providers should retain their status as providers of “telecommunications services” instead of providers of “information services.”
First, as an “information service” provider; if one company in a community is allowed to monopolize cable broadband, its opportunities for not only excessive pricing but censorship of content are manifest. As the Brennan Center and the ACLU stated in a “friend-of-the-court” brief to the Supreme Court: “a cable company that has complete control over its customers’ access to the internet could censor their ability to speak, block access to disfavored information services, monitor their online activity, and subtly manipulate the information sources they rely on.” If this regulation should prevail, telephone companies that offer broadband service will be pressing the FCC to re-categorize them as “information services,” thus furthering monopolizing internet access and driving out smaller providers, including non-profit ones. It won’t stop here – even wireless and other new technologies will begin to via for this status, then where will we turn? I ask: How will limiting competition for broadband providers encourage, increase and facilitate innovation?
The hard fact is that the top five cable companies in the U.S. control 75 percent of the cable market nationwide. If the government does not require these companies to open access via their cable systems to other ISP’s, these five cable companies will soon effectively control the internet as well…In this scenario, a cable ISP may redirect users away from competitor content (or to other content the ISP does not want a user to see) ….this would be outright blocking of content and redirection. (www.fepproject.org/news/brandx.html)
Network Neutrality has existed throughout the history of the Internet and created the most dynamic environment for innovation and competition the nation has seen in generations. Good government policy decisions created an open, neutral communications platform over the objections of the telephone companies. It is the opponents of Network Neutrality who would burden the Internet with network discrimination. Save the Internet Blog » Blog Archive » The Post Should Fact Check Before Offering Opinion
Why is legislation needed to have cable and DSL providers remain neutral and be recognized as “common carriers” in the name of the law and not “information service” providers? It’s simple; as stated, if they are allowed to create tiers within the internet, and control and censure content, many things will happen that will severely damage if not destroy the innovative capabilities and opportunities the internet as we know it provides today.
We need Net Neutrality to:
• Ward off the prospects of virtual toll booths on the internet
• To prohibit BBP from discriminating against all forms of digital content.
o For example, phone or cable companies would not be allowed to slow down competing companies undesirable content.
• To protect our values and the interests we care about: civil rights, economic justice, the environment, and fair elections.
• Stop the threat of corporate control upon us.
• To keep all forms of civic and noncommercial online programming from being pushed to the end of the commercial digital queue.
• To keep the Bells and cable companies from monetizing the internet.
• To keep these same giants from monopolizing their control over the residential bb services that send video, voice and data into our tv’s, home pc’s, cell phones and iPods.
• To keep any company from influencing the stream of information coming into your home or mobile devices.
• To keep them from “Mining your Data” – from knowing what information your are receiving online, from e-mail, to websites, to sharing music, video and software downloads…imagine if the USPS or any other delivery service provider was permitted to open and review your mail without your knowledge or permission.
• We must support Net Neutrality regulation to stop the phone and cable companies from operating as fully “private” networks so that the internet may remain a free and open network that offers equal access to all, instead of reducing it to a series of business decisions between consumers and providers.
In addition to their strong business interests, these companies have a larger political agenda which is opposing giving local communities the right to create their own local internet wireless or wi-fi networks. They want to eliminate the last vestige of local oversight from electronic media – that is to eliminate the ability for our local governments to require telecom’s to serve the public interest, with, for example, public access TV channels. They also want, through these actions to further reduce the ability of the FCC to oversee communications policy. Who will be looking out for us if this should prevail?
Censorship: Privacy, the protection of personal data is an essential element of building and retaining confidence in the use of information and communication on the internet. Business advocates for privacy protection to allow them to flourish and thrive. Governments, business and other groups must have a solid core of privacy principles which enable business to meet to thrive and be competitive in our economy. Without the guarantee of such laws, policies and practices we will invite obstacles to promote the free and secure flow of information within and between companies, and each other we will stymie innovation.
Neutrality with respect to user choice in needed to promote innovation, increase access and foster diversity of choice. This will ensure an environment that maximizes competition and allows users of the internet to choose that information and technology that best meets their specific needs based upon considerations such as performance, quality, reliability, security and cost.
Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. And, our government should protect us. The Telecom industry’s mantra: “don’t regulate the Internet” is only slightly misleading. Since all aspects of our economy are governed by laws, regulations, and government policies, it is not a question of whether to “regulate the internet,” but how. The FCC’s decision to allow phone companies to monopolize DSL wires is one type of regulation. A decision by Congress that would require net neutrality, thereby restoring the common carrier principle, is another type of regulation – and one far more likely to secure the democratic potential of the Internet for generations to come.
The internet is a vibrant and growing medium for communicating, sharing information and knowledge, and doing business. In this case, not securing the net’s neutrality with this regulation will inhibit its flow and diminishes the benefits of the internet.
The Telco’s supporting this legislation want to create a multi-tiered internet, where fees are charged for tiered levels of service: speed and access. Where Telco’s can monitor, view, judge, and censure the content of the information sent over their systems much the way they do television now. This legislation is lacking serious net neutrality protection to control companies that control broadband Internet access from discriminating in the provision of services. If legislation is passed as currently written, it would allow the few companies that now dominate broadband to gain control of the Internet and end it as we know it.
Think of it - Nonprofit educational, religious, and advocacy groups of every political and cultural variety, unable to pay for the fast lane, would be regulated, to what is being described as “a bumpy dirt road” should these “roads” be able to be viewed at all. Think about all of the services and information regarding health, our environment, political agenda’s, personal web sites, any thing you can name – would be delivered at slower speeds – remember dial-up – but commercials and advertisements and the content of any corporation that could afford to pay would be there first, zooming into view.
In mid March of this year, the takeover of the internet was close. The big Telco’s were, as Marjorie Heins wrote regarding Net Neutrality in her Free Expression Policy Project commentary on May 30: ““That Big Telco was comfortably pulling of its heist in broad daylight”. And, then the blogosphere lived up to its potential.” ¾ of a million people gathered at savetheinternet.com and wrote emails and faxed their representatives and Senators to vote against this bill. This was enough to raise the profile of this issue to stop it - for the moment.
Do you think for a moment that this would have been possible if the Telco’s were in control and were free to control its content?
If the companies that that own the pipes can block sites they dislike, or that don’t pay them for fast connections to our computer screens – then the Internet will be transformed from a dynamic, interactive forum into just another medium for delivering shopping and entertainment.
Do we want to repeat what has happened and allow the creation of another group of "Global Media Giants" that now haunts the world. Similar to the media giants, do we want our Internet to be dominated by a small number of super powerful corporations? It will be just another system that works to advance the cause of the global and US market and promote commercial values, while accomplishing the same denigration of journalism and culture not conducive to the immediate bottom line or long run corporate interests. It will be a disaster for anything but the most superficial notion of democracy. We should not, and can not continue to give way to those who own the world to be allowed to control it.
Do we want to create another first tier of giant media firms in the world of the Internet, remembering that the rules for any giant are twofold: First, get bigger so you dominate markets and your competition can't buy you out. Second, have interests in numerous media industries, so that firms that do not have conglomerated holdings simply cannot compete. Do we need another "Big Five" as in the music business: Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI Group, Warner Brothers Music, BMG Entertainment, or another "Giant Nine" as in the media industry: Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, TCI, GE, Sony, Seagram’s, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation controlling everything we see, hear, and read!
What is tragic is that this entire process of global media concentration has taken place with little public debate in the U.S., despite the clear implications for politics and culture. Are we, the PUBLIC to do the same with the Internet by remaining quite, voicing no interest in what happens to our future, our freedoms!
CLOSING STATEMENT
Therefore, in closing, we must agree, that the passage of the COPE Act turns control of the internet over to the carriers, who will then convert it into something that resembles TV, or the newspaper, controlling what we see and hear.
a. That from this an age of premium fees for different levels of service and a “preferred customer” status will invade the internet and distort the market for internet applications in favor of larger and better funded content providers and against small providers and that we would experience differing response times in interacting with various content providers, some of whom paid the carrier a “premium” and some who did not. This does not even address the issues raised by numerous commentators who have cautioned that authorizing incumbent network providers to override the separation of the transport and applications layers of the Internet - signals the end of the authority of the fundamental Internet standards and indeed, of the standards-making processes for the Internet themselves.
That a tiering of broadband would allow for the sale of “Voice – or – Video oriented “Quality of Service Packages” which would undoubtedly increase the number of services we the consumer would need to purchase: one for email, one to search, one for text, one for video, one for voice, and so on…..
It is also worth mentioning that if this goes through – content or service-sensitive blocking or censorship on the part of the broadband carriers would be possible.
Let's see whether the United States is capable as acting according to its important values, or whether it is, as so many people are saying, run by the misguided short-term interested of large corporations.
That's what big telecom is trying to do: shut the democratic architecture of the Internet. By creating two "tiers" -- one fast charging fees and a second Web: cheaper and slower that could limit access to independently run sites.
In other words, opponents to the Internet's open and free access are trying to change the rules -- and they're trying to mislead you, claiming that they're against regulation and that they only want you to pay for the rising cost of their "pipes." That's information warfare.
Democracy relies on the honest exchange of information. We now have a rare opportunity to better control our own lives, and to demand an increasingly clean government. Only a few of us will speak truth to power, but a lot more of us need to get behind those who do.
Conclusion
The Internet governance structures and mechanisms work well today. Business supports the existing organizations maintaining their current roles and mandate. Business views the evolution, development and improvement of these structures as keys to unleashing the full potential of the Internet for all. The free flow of information, access, and full integration of the Internet must remain free from the control of the telco’s and cable providers if the internet is to remain a tool for innovation, economic growth and social development.
For these reasons, we must agree as of today:
o There is the fear that the telecommunication companies will begin requiring all content providers (including very small ones, non-profits, schools and municipalities) to pay additional fees to keep their sites accessible to all Web users. This would be in addition to the hosting/connection fees that are currently paid by these entities.
o Good business would be to not impose additional costs while the Internet is developing, and yes, it is still in its development stages.
o A second and more sinister concern involves the possibility for censorship. If the telecoms are given the ability to restrict access based on who pays, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so for other, non-capitalistic reasons.
o That the current system must remain one in which everyone connected to the Internet has the same opportunity to reach everyone else, stimulates entrepreneurship and free expression.
o Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney published a great commentary in a Washington Post article (via Blogscoped), the day of the House vote: where they state that: "Congress is about to cast a historic vote on the future of the Internet. It will decide whether the Internet remains a free and open technology fostering innovation, economic growth and democratic communication, or instead becomes the property of cable and phone companies that can put toll booths at every on-ramp and exit on the information superhighway."
o If the economics of regulation teaches us anything, it is that price regulation can easily grow and contribute to large inefficiencies.
o Proponents fear that BROADBAND providers can exercise monopoly power on the market for BROADBAND connections. Without some form of mandated Net Neutrality providers could exercise anticompetitive control over pricing and access, and thus harm consumers.
o Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success...A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny." (Vint Cerf, Google Chief Internet Evangelist and Co-Developer of the Internet Protocol.)
o There is protection provided to address the scenarios mentioned above. The Net neutrality movement is simply seeking to ensure that those protections are built in to whatever legislation this debate may generate.
o If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level. That's all. It’s up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens.
o So in the end, we must demand our Representatives include in any Bill addressing the Internet’s Neutrality mandate that:
o Broadband providers exercise no control over content
o Bar broadband providers from charging for higher-quality services or prioritizing transmission.
o Implicitly say that BROADBAND providers must charge content providers a price of ZERO and must charge end users only in certain, prescribed ways.
o There should be new laws prohibiting Internet providers from blocking or degrading traffic from their competitors’ networks because if providers are allowed to give preferential treatment to some Web traffic, businesses using competing tools will find themselves in the slow lane.
o I will close with a statement made by Sir Timothy Lee, the inventor of the internet.
Net neutrality is this:
Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the Internet for free. Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn't pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will. There have been suggestions that we don't need legislation because we haven't had it. These are nonsense, because in fact we have had net neutrality in the past -- it is only recently that real explicit threats have occurred.
Control of information is hugely powerful. In the US, the threat is that companies control what I can access for commercial reasons. There is a very strong short-term incentive for a company to grab control of TV distribution over the Internet even though it is against the long-term interests of the industry.
Yes, regulation to keep the Internet open is regulation. And mostly, the Internet thrives on lack of regulation. But some basic values have to be preserved. For example, the market system depends on the rule that you can't photocopy money. Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society is based on it.” (END Sir Timothy Lee)
And, lastly, regarding the bill, which overall is a net loss for democracy. The bill fails to protect low-income and rural consumers through reasonable build-out requirements, jeopardizes the free and open nature of the Internet, and unfairly strips states and localities of their consumer protection enforcement powers. Therefore we urge all members of Congress to vote against this bill.
[This message has been edited by gcon1 (edited July 23, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by gcon1 (edited July 23, 2006).]
Bistro Friend: Email this page's URL to friend!
Ground Zero Bistro
posted July 18, 2006 07:40 AM
posted July 19, 2006 09:19 PM
