What is the "Net Neutrality" Issue
About?
Updated
December 5, 2006
Stephen Landman, Ph.D.,
Owner, Egret Net Web Design
Louisville, KY
12/5/06 It appears that the Senate probably will not vote on net neutrality during the lame duck session, although it has not formally be pulled from consideration. So net neutrality has dodged that bazooka, for the moment. However the issue is not going to fade away. The FCC is now corrupted by the lobbying of the telecoms. Click here for the story on that.
In addition to trying to kill net neutrality by corrupting the FCC, the telecoms, while foiled in the new congress, are attacking net neutrality on a state by state basis. Click here for more information on this.
----------------------
Right now you can go to your computer and bring up any web site in the world,
and it will work as well as it can in your web browser.
Right now you can put a web site online for your small business (very
inexpensively) and it will be readily available to people all over the world.
Today the state of affairs on the internet is that we have "net neutrality."
That means that the entire world wide web is available to everyone in the United
States who uses a computer that is hooked up with some kind of internet
connection.
This could change. We could lose "net neutrality." A loss of net neutrality
would come if the telecommunications companies and the broadband (cable and DSL)
providers (Bellsouth, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc.) get Congress to change the
law so that they can choose what web sites they will carry on their networks,
and so they can charge web site owners to include their web sites in the package
they deliver to their subscribers. While the change in the law they are seeking
would permit them to choose to not carry web sites, they say that they will
continue to carry all web sites, but that they will have a "two-tiered system",
in which site owners who pay them large fees will be on the top tier and those
who don't pay them will be on the bottom tier. The top tier web sites will have
better speed, reliability, security, and will be able to utilize advanced
features, such as video. The bottom tier web sites will be slower, less
reliable, less secure, and will have fewer features.
The companies promoting this change in the law have spent many millions of
dollars lobbying Congress. They succeeded in getting their version of the bill
passed in the House of Representatives, but it has not passed in the Senate.
They did not want to bring up the bill before the recent congressional election,
as the bill is unpopular with the voters. The bill seems to have very little
chance of success in the next congress. However we are now in a lame duck
session of congress, until January, when the new congress is sworn in. It is
"now or never" for those who want to kill net neutrality. They will pull out all
of the stops to kill net neutrality in this lame duck session, because it's
their last chance to do so.
It is interesting that two organizations which have joined forces to gather
signatures on petitions to preserve net neutrality are the Christian Coalition
(a conservative group), and moveon.org (a liberal group). Both of these
organizations, and many other organizations, rely on the internet to get their
message to the public. Neither would be able to exist if net neutrality were
killed. The web makes it possible for everyone to have their say and to be
heard. People have blogs. I am putting my views here. If net neutrality were to
be eliminated, I couldn't easily state my views online, and others couldn't
state theirs. The web is a great democratizing force. To turn it into nothing
but a tool for a few large corporations to use for their own revenue source
would be to kill a treasure.
The public has a lot to lose if the web is changed (destroyed, I'd say) by the
loss of net neutrality. But the biggest losers of all would be small businesses.
Marketing and selling online have become mainstream practices for small
businesses. Many small businesses are entirely web based companies. Through web
sites small businesses can compete on an equal playing field with large
businesses. Small companies may not be able to afford the rent of a large
shopping mall. Small businesses may not be able to afford full page ads in the
newspaper, and 30 second television ads on the major television stations in
prime time. But small businesses can afford their web sites, which work just as
well as the web sites of large companies. But if net neutrality goes, so does
the effectiveness of small business web sites.
Those who want to kill net neutrality are putting a confusing ad on television
to try to fool the public. Their ad says that net neutrality is just "mumbo
jumbo" to get the public to pay higher fees to big silicon valley companies.
There are big silicon valley companies which are in favor of keeping net
neutrality. They are Google, Yahoo, E-Bay, and Amazon.com. It currently costs
you nothing to use most of their services. You can search the search engines
without fees to do so, and you can make purchases on E-Bay and Amazon.com.
Merchants can pay Google or Yahoo fees to get sponsored listings in their search
engines, and people who sell things on E-Bay pay E-Bay pay a very small fee for
using the service. But these services cost the public nothing to use. If net
neutrality is lost, the major search engines and E-Bay and Amazon.com would have
to pay huge fees to be able to have their web sites continue to work, and they
would have to pass on these costs to the public which uses their services. But
it is very misleading and untrue to say that these companies want net neutrality
so that they can make you pay more for their services; they don't charge you now
for their services, and they don't want to have to charge you more for their
services.
They also have misleading web sites, with names as "hands off the internet", suggesting that they are trying to protect the internet from those who are trying to destroy it. In fact they are trying to destroy the free and open internet as we know it.
The Federal Communication Commission says that net neutrality must be maintained, and that they would regulate the broadband companies to assure that it is maintained. In response the legislation before congress now would make it law that the FCC would be prohibited from making or enforcing rules that maintain net neutrality.
If those companies which want to kill net neutrality get what they want, the web will become another form of cable television. You will only be able to view the content that the internet access provider is willing to show you. The only web sites that will be fast and fully functional will be those of the businesses which have paid the big bucks, and those will be the Walmarts, the Home Depots, the Office Max Stores, and other large corporations. Web sites put up by small businesses and individuals will not be functional enough to be viable.
The arguments put forth by those who want to kill net neutrality are bogus.
They say that these companies need the money to pay for innovation and that the web will deteriorate if they do not get the legislation they want. I say that innovation is alive and well, and progress will not stop if they don't have total control of the web. Actually innovation will stall if they do get their way. They will have no incentive to improve services. They have close to a monopoly in effect. People don't have very many choices when it comes to buying high speed internet connections. There is little competition or motive to keep prices down. The legislation they want will assure them of billions of dollars in new revenues, and they would not have to deliver anything at all in return. They are not promising to give any new or better services, but are making vague statements that services will deteriorate unless they get what they want.
They also argue that there is not need for "regulation" because a problem has not yet been demonstrated. Of course the problem has not yet been demonstrated because we still have net neutrality. To say that a problem has not yet been demonstrated is the same as tossing someone off the roof of a tall building and when he's half way down and screaming, you tell him to "Shut up", because he can't show that he's been hurt yet.
The companies say that they are not going to make any web sites unreachable, and that no one will get hurt. Now, think. If all of the current web sites continued as they work now, there wouldn't be a two-tiered system; there would be our current one-tiered system, and no company would have any motive to pay to be in the top tiered group. Of course small business web sites will be disadvantaged. If there were no disadvantaged web sites, there would be no businesses willing to pay to be in the top tier.
They are labeling rules that maintain net neutrality as "unnecessary government regulation." But they want legislation that regulates the internet by giving them total control over it. Any legislation that prevents that is necessary. The FCC Commissioner, Michael J. Copps, points out that the United States has much slower and poorer internet connections than do European Countries because of de-regulation of the telecomms in the U.S., which gives them no incentive to provide good service. See "America's Broadband Scandal."
In my opinion this attempt to kill net neutrality is the
ultimate in "special interest" legislation. It will benefit a very few large
corporations, giving them huge windfall profits, at the expense of the general
public and small businesses; and it all would happen because of lobbying of
politicians by these corporations. It is a very clear example of our government
being for sale to the highest bidders. It is corruption, and it shows the great
need for campaign finance reform.
Here are some current links with information on the issue. You can also still
use a search engine to find a lot more information on net neutrality.
New Congress Could Reboot Net Neutrality - Nov. 10, 2006
Thousands of Michigan voters petition their state senators to save net neutrality - Nov. 29, 2006
Associations of Minority Journalists Support Net Neutrality - Nov. 20, 2006
Lame Duck Senators Plan Assault On Open Internet
Major assault coming against net neutrality in the lame duck session of Congress
Creative Voices Call for Stronger Net Neutrality Rules
EasyStreet Business Blog on Net Neutrality
US Congress Poised to Unravel the Internet
Christian Coalition Supports Net Neutrality
MoveOn.org Supports Net Neutrality
National Commission on Libraries Supports Net Neutrality
The New Republic Supports Net Neutrality
Liberals and Conservatives Unite in Support of Net Neutrality
Gun Owners of America Supports Net Neutrality
Does Net Neutrality Seem Like a Big Deal?
Here is a talk (in Real Audio format and also in mp3 format) by Senator Ted Stevens, of Alaska, who leads the effort to kill net neutrality. In his talk he demonstrates that he is very confused about the issue, and that he does not understand the simplest concepts about the internet, or even desktop computers:
http://egret-annex.com/senator_ted_stevens_explains_the_internet_and_net_neutrality.htm
Senator Ted Stevens Calls Net Neutrality "A Fetish."
What can you do to help prevent control of the web from
being given to a few large telecommunications companies? Call the offices
of your United States Senators, and tell them that you want net neutrality to be
maintained.