Internet Neutrality

The internet is one of the best things to happen to information and democracy in this century. It is like the pamphleteers of old. It has created communities that reach out to like minded souls. It has given us a Birdseye view of contrary opinions. It is fluid and a fascinating tool for learning and sharing information.

So, it is not exactly a surprise that the I.S.P.’s who control the highway would want to put up tollbooths. Capitalism isn’t exactly about democratic principles. Capitalism, and in this day and age of concentrated corporate power, is about profit and in many instances limiting information for profits sake.

The NYT’s has an editorial today on the side of the new pamphleteers and those who partake in the information and opinion they disseminate.

Here it is:

February 20, 2006

Editorial

Tollbooths on the Internet Highway

When you use the Internet today, your browser glides from one Web site to another, accessing all destinations with equal ease. That could change dramatically, however, if Internet service providers are allowed to tilt the playing field, giving preference to sites that pay them extra and penalizing those that don't.

The Senate held hearings last week on "network neutrality," the principle that I.S.P.'s — the businesses like Verizon or Roadrunner that deliver the Internet to your computer — should not be able to stack the deck in this way. If the Internet is to remain free, and freely evolving, it is important that neutrality legislation be passed.

In its current form, Internet service operates in the same nondiscriminatory way as phone service. When someone calls your home, the telephone company puts through the call without regard to who is calling. In the same way, Internet service providers let Web sites operated by eBay, CNN or any other company send information to you on an equal footing. But perhaps not for long. It has occurred to the service providers that the Web sites their users visit could be a rich new revenue source. Why not charge eBay a fee for using the Internet connection to conduct its commerce, or ask Google to pay when customers download a video? A Verizon Communications executive recently sent a scare through cyberspace when he said at a telecommunications conference, as The Washington Post reported, that Google "is enjoying a free lunch" that ought to be going to providers like Verizon.

The solution, as far as the I.S.P.'s are concerned, could be what some critics are calling "access tiering," different levels of access for different sites, based on ability and willingness to pay. Giants like Walmart.com could get very fast connections, while little-guy sites might have to settle for the information superhighway equivalent of a one-lane, pothole-strewn road. Since many companies that own I.S.P.'s, like Time Warner, are also in the business of selling online content, they could give themselves an unfair advantage over their competition.

If access tiering takes hold, the Internet providers, rather than consumers, could become the driving force in how the Internet evolves. Those corporations' profit-driven choices, rather than users' choices, would determine which sites and methodologies succeed and fail. They also might be able to stifle promising innovations, like Internet telephony, that compete with their own business interests.

Most Americans have little or no choice of broadband I.S.P.'s, so they would have few options if those providers shifted away from neutrality. Congress should protect access to the Internet in its current form. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, says he intends to introduce an Internet neutrality bill, which would prohibit I.S.P.'s from favoring content providers that paid them fees, or from giving priority to their own content.

Some I.S.P.'s are phone and cable companies that make large campaign contributions, and are used to getting their way in Washington. But Americans feel strongly about an open and free Internet. Net neutrality is an issue where the public interest can and should trump the special interests.

Will the politicians in the pockets of these special interests vote their pocketbook or will they vote for the public interest? Keep in mind, AT&T, et. al., have already turned over their switches to the NSA. So, not only are the carriers in bed with the Administration, I’d be willing to bet that a quid pro quo means this Administration and this Congress are in bed with the carriers.

Got your EasyPass? Just as with this handy dandy convenience, law enforcement now knows everywhere you go on the highways of this country. Soon they may also know everywhere you go on the fiber-optic highway and you will have the privilege of paying for it.