Power to the people: Who will control the Internet?

Posted 8/21/12

“The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite to link several billion devices worldwide.”—Wikipedia

Most Americans, …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Power to the people: Who will control the Internet?

Posted

“The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite to link several billion devices worldwide.”—Wikipedia

Most Americans, whether they realize it or not, have something important in common with Netflix. We want all data that is transmitted over the Internet to be treated equally regardless of who sends it, i.e. no go-to-the-head-of-the-line treatment for those who can pay more. Huge corporations that transmit the data, however—companies like Comcast, Time-Warner, Verizon and AT&T for example—have a different idea. They want the ability to charge more to transmit data to certain of their customers for expedited services.

At the heart of this difference is “net neutrality” or Internet neutrality (www.vox.com/cards/network-neutrality/whats-network-neutrality), the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated the same way for all, creating a level playing field for everyone who uses it. To date, four million Internet users have asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to maintain net neutrality, the largest number of public comments the commission has ever received on a single subject. In addition, in May 2014, dozens of companies, large and small, also urged the FCC to “protect users and Internet companies on both fixed and mobile platforms against blocking, discrimination and paid prioritization… Such rules are essential for the future of the Internet.” (See the full list of signatory companies at cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf).

Because it allows for the free flow of information and ideas, the Internet is a democratizing medium that allows access to everyone who can pay a relatively modest fee to connect via an Internet service provider (ISP). It has also become an economic necessity, adding another powerful dimension to the net neutrality discussion. (Keep in mind that there are small, local ISPs like many residents of the Upper Delaware River region subscribe to, and then there are the giants like Comcast, the nation’s largest ISP and cable company.)

Last year, many people followed with great interest the face-off over this issue between Comcast and Netflix, which wanted to stream videos from its new distribution network like any Internet user, i.e. at no extra transmission cost. Comcast, however, was demanding extra fees, and while the two companies engaged in a standoff, Comcast “throttled” streaming speeds from Netflix to its customers, slowing delivery of Netflix’ product. In the end, after Netflix saw a substantial drop in its video streaming speeds for its Comcast subscribers, it agreed to pay for direct access (think of a kind of direct pipeline) to Comcast’s high-speed, broadband network.

Last week President Obama weighed in, calling for the FCC to pass strong net neutrality rules that would (a) prohibit Internet providers from intentionally slowing down or speeding up certain websites or services based on their own preferences, (b) prohibit them from offering paid “fast lanes,” and (c) prohibit them from blocking websites that offer legal content.

A new public opinion poll conducted by the University of Delaware’s Center for Political Communication shows that “fully 81% [of those polled] oppose ‘allowing Internet service providers to charge some websites or streaming video services extra for faster speeds’” (www.udel.edu/cpc/research/fall2014/UD-CPC-NatAgenda2014PR_2014NetNeutrality.pdf).

There’s no question that Americans want faster speeds on the Internet, and companies like Comcast say that the fees it wants are necessary to help pay for building out expensive cable and wireless infrastructure to deliver high-speed broadband capabilities to more and more users. On the other hand, advocates of net neutrality argue that without a free and open Internet, barriers would be erected for those starting new and innovative businesses that will create jobs and build the economy. (Ask yourself: would Amazon, eBay, Google and Facebook have had their successful start-ups without a free and open Internet? We think not.) And finally, there is the widely shared fear among millions of Americans that they will be relegated to second-class Internet service if net neutrality is not preserved.

Finally, this entire discussion is of special interest to rural America, which includes the Upper Delaware River region. If large corporate ISPs can increase profits by charging for enhanced services from those who can best afford to pay, what incentive will there be for these corporations to build out broadband infrastructure to rural areas? So what? Without broadband, rural Americans will be relegated to the economic hinterlands, unable to compete in the marketplace on a fair and level footing.

Until now the Internet has been a tool to spread the ideas of freedom and democracy around the world and to support economic opportunity and innovation. However, the great promise of the Internet can be preserved only if it remains free and open. We believe that once economically privileged and powerful companies receive special rules for themselves, we can kiss the Internet as we know it good-by. We support President Obama’s call for the FCC to preserve net neutrality. We ask you to support net neutrality, too.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here