This is more or less the way the Internet operates today — data from Google is transmitted just as quickly as data from an obscure and infinitely less influential Web site. Call it the equality of opportunity for information to reach your computer. Or for you libertarians out there, the freedom of an individual to access whatever Web sites and information he pleases.
However, just because this is the way the Internet operates today does not necessarily mean it will be the way the Internet operates next year. At least, not if opponents of net neutrality get their way and are successful in defeating legislation before Congress, which would put this status-quo way of operating into law and establish regulations. In August, Massachusetts Representative Ed Markey introduced the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009,” having twice been unsuccessful at pushing net neutrality as an amendment rather than a stand-alone bill. The act would forbid Internet service providers (ISPs) to “block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair or degrade” access to lawful content from a lawful application or device.
The absence of net neutrality would be tantamount to phone companies controlling whom you can call and throttling the call quality to certain numbers at their discretion. It would mean that companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner would be able to actively discriminate against competitors and serve their content at faster speeds or even prevent you from accessing or viewing certain information. Sound too far-fetched? It shouldn’t, because it has already begun to happen. Earlier this year, in July, AT&T blocked the message boards of the popular site 4chan.org.
Regulation is even more important in the absence of competition, and in many areas of the United States, consumer choice is generally limited to one or two ISPs: the local cable or telephone providers. It doesn’t take a lot of work to guess that the two aforementioned industries are not the biggest fans of net neutrality, but the movement is not without powerful backers. Basically, the camps are split into service providers and content providers, with Ebay, Amazon, Vonage, Microsoft and Google all supporters of net neutrality legislation.
Google’s “Guide To Net Neutrality For Internet Users” reads, “Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content.” Fundamentally, net neutrality is also about innovation. In an industry where today’s most prominent Web sites and companies started out as small, nearly unknown pet projects, granting large established players the keys to a new gate in front of the Internet would stifle the next generation of content and web 3.0, whatever that turns out to be.
But as with most things in our political system, money talks, and the telecoms and cable companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have been talking a lot with hundreds of millions of dollars. To be exact, $334 million since 2007. It’s irritating that a bunch of old guys on Capitol Hill who probably still use VCRs and think the Internet is “a series of tubes” (thank you, Ted Stevens) have power over the future of it, but it’s even more irritating when the same bunch of old guys have their hands stuck in the money jars of corporations more concerned about their own power and control of content than about innovation and consumer freedom.
Representatives and Senators from both parties have received large amounts of money from the telecom and cable companies. In fact, 70 Democrats from the House of Representatives cosigned a letter to the Federal Communications Comission (FCC) arguing against net neutrality regulation. In the Senate, 20 prominent Republicans are staunchly opposed to keeping the Internet open and equal. John McCain holds the privilege of being the number one recipient of donations from the telecom and cable industry — nearly $2 million.
However, for once, money doesn’t seem to be all that matters on Capitol Hill: Markey himself is one of the top recipients of donations from opponents of net neutrality, at $370,000. And the Obama administration, also a large recipient of donations, has lined up in support of net neutrality. Julius Genachowski, FCC Chairman, speaking with Wired magazine on Sept. 21 states his position quite clearly: “The Internet’s creators didn’t want the network architecture — or any single entity — to pick winners and losers. The principles that will protect the open Internet are an essential step to maximize investment and innovation in the network and on the edge of it — by establishing rules of the road that incentivize competition, empower entrepreneurs and grow the economic pie to the benefit of all.”
For the sake of streaming video, offensive 4chan forum posting, lolcats and the creator of the next Facebook, let’s hope net neutrality scores a resounding victory with the passage of Markey’s bill. But regardless, I doubt anyone will be torrenting the CSPAN coverage.