|
 A
battle has been raging in the US which goes to the very core of the
Internet and the freedoms which enshrine it. On the one hand is the
idea that the Internet flourishes as a place free from regulation. On
the other is the principle of 'network neutrality', whereby ISPs should
transfer data (and get paid for it) without any regards to what that
data actually is - and that regulation is needed to ensures its survival. Increasingly the major US cable and telecoms
companies, such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner are
seeking - as carriers of the Internet's traffic - to effectively act as
gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast
or slow and which won't load at all; all based on who pays them the
most money.
The US Congress is currently revising the US telecommunications Act.
The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006
will water down the principle of net neutrality considerably, and is
opposed by six different bills opposing the potential creation of a two
tier system - those who can pay for fast web access and delivery, and
those who can't.
At the heart of the dispute is the fact that the US cable and
telecoms
companies - who risk losing much of their telephone revenues to
services like Skype, and cable TV revenues to IPTV services such as
Google, YouTube and VideoBomb - want to provide preferential (ie
faster) access to companies who pay them more money. Conversely,
competing services, such as free to use voice-over-IP products may be
slowed down or prevented completely. To qutoe campaign group
savetheinternet.com's website:
These
companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even
playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content
and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep
tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
And the issue isn't just about who pays
money, it can form a type of corporate censorship. In 2005, Canada's
telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site
sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a
contentious labor dispute. And in April this year, Time Warner's AOL
allegedly blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an
advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
Network
neutrality, a principle enshrined within the foundations of the
Internet, holds that ISPs transport data without regard, preference or
discrimination for the content. It is that very freedom, that has
arguably lead to the web's success. Michael Geist, in an article
for news.bbc.co.uk in December 2005 described the reasoning:
"Websites,
e-commerce companies, and other innovators have also relied on network
neutrality, secure in the knowledge that the network treats all
companies, whether big or small, equally. That approach enables those
with the best products and services, not the deepest pockets, to emerge
as the market winners.
Internet users have similarly benefited from the
network neutrality principle. They enjoy access to greater choice in
goods, services, and content regardless of which ISP they use."
But all is not lost, for it is an issue which seems to have
united a remarkably diverse bunch of organisations. From Internet and
web founders Vint Cerf and Tim Berners Lee, through to thousands of
blogers and cosumer rights groups from Moby and Michael Stipe to The
Christian Coalition, who have bandied together under the www.savetheinternet.com
campaign. Even most of the big web corps are on board with the unlikely
allaince of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay and a few other majors
behind the www.dontmesswiththenet.com campaign.
Some say that the issue is simply moving the goalposts of neutrality
- Google's search results are powered by unknown proprietary algorythms
and as such the company, like Microsoft and Yahoo, has a huge influence
over which content is easy to find - and which isn't - which in a
future of networked media distribution puts them in pretty powerful
positions as potential censors. Time will tell how all the companies
involved handle the responsibility - and how long the internet's users,
a powerfully informed body of people, indulge any abuse of the web's
freedoom.
 |
Show/Hide comment form
Not to be overlooked! COPE also will devastate the thousands of Public, Educational, and Governmental access channels and facilities around the country. The 'National Franchise' will remove local municipal oversight and administation of local video franchises and place it in the hands of the FCC.
COPE is also written to ALLOW for Red-Lining. The provisions are weak at best - they give the Telcos 'build-out' requirements with no timetable specified.
This Bill is a disaster in so many ways. Yes, it's bi-partisan, but the Democratic co-sponsor, Bobby Rush of Illinois received a million dollar donation to his personal community center from AT&T /SBC. This seems to be the going rate for bi-partisan Bills that compromise democratic principles.
Go to: http://saveaccess.org to sign on to a letter to Congress that asks for stronger PEG provisions, net neutrality protections and the prevention of red-lining.