We are getting closer and closer to losing the freedom that the Internet gives all of us on a daily basis. For those of you who are still a little unfamiliar with what net neutrality is and how is affects you, there's a great article here from wisegeek.com that explains this topic very well. Basically, if the Internet were open and neutral, ISP's, serarch providers (like Google or Yahoo) and telecommunications companies (like Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, etc.) would not be allowed to restrict or filter a user's access to specific sites. This will make it possible for, let's say, a small online auction company to have the same access to customers as Ebay. Also, it won't let the same companies to unfairly restrict access to rival companies, like AOL not letting you subscribe to Yahoo mail because you have an account with AOL.
Another article from Gizmodo and Wired details the opposition from both sides of the political spectrum to the proposed new rules. However, the two sides hardly agree in their opposition (no surprise there). One side says the rules don't do enough to preserve net neutrality and the other side says that the newly proposed rules represent yet another example of the federal government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. I'll let you figure out which side it which. I am generally a middle-of-the-road moderate on most issues. All the disagreement and rancor in America today can, in most cases, be boiled down to one central difference between the two sides: what the role of the federal government should be. I think the majority of Americans could agree that protecting citizens against abusive and discriminatory practices by businesses (especially large international corporations) is definitely within their authority. Think of where America would be without the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Civil Rights Movement. I'm not grandstanding here. I realize that those issues are considered by most to be of more significance to America today than net neutrality, but the underlying principle is the same. Curiously, the newly proposed rules by the FCC will prevent companies from any "unreasonable" discrimination against online services, but what can be classified as "unreasonable" is vague at best. Even for those who do see this as another attempt by our federal government to interfere with our lives, I ask you this: should our laws ever allow ANY type of discrimination, no matter how "reasonable" it may seem? I think this provision in the newly proposed rules is a slippery slope and we need to step back before we fall down it.
All that being said, the new rules do include some good protections for consumers and businesses. It won't allow companies to block or slow user's access to competitors. Service providers can, however, grant faster access to companies that are willing to pay for it. Mobile carriers will not be able to restrict what services or sites consumers have access to, but they will be able to charge more to access specific sites (with YouTube and Facebook probably at the top of their list). I understand that the habits of consumers have changed when it comes to internet usage. More and more people are using wireless networks to access the internet. Some sites and services require more of the available network space than others, and this affects the bottom line of the companies who provide that access. Those companies have the right and the financial incentive to compensate for these changes and remain profitable. I just feel that the current ideas out there (like Verizon charging you extra to view videos on YouTube) don't have enough clarity or direction to protect citizens and smaller companies from abusive practices by larger corporations. If carriers are allowed to pick and choose which sites they will charge more for, it not only creates an uneven playing field for those types of sites (by charging for one video site and not another, for example), but it also forces consumers to pay for those sites even if the site itself wants its services to be free to any user. This freedom of access to sites like YouTube are key to their success. Another example of how this might be bad for competition is: if the carriers charged the sites rather than charging the consumer for access. This would put a smaller startup company at a significant disadvantage if they don't have the capital to pay the carrier for allowing users free access via the carrier's network. In a worst-case scenario, the Internet would be dominated by larger corporations' websites because the costs to start a new Internet-based business would be too high for most start-ups, no matter how unique and innovative that start-up may be. In fact, carriers may have deals in place with larger customers that specifically affect those types of sites that may represent a significant threat to their market share. YouTube could say to Verizon: "Hey, we pay you $1 million to give your customers free access to our site. We expect other similar sites to pay for that free access too." Verizon says: "They don't generate as much traffic as you, therefore they don't cost us as much. That's why you pay $1 million." There could be an argument here for a model that charges a proportional amount based on amount of traffic, and I'm sure there would be a debate about how to structure a system like that, but at least some type of model would ensure that carriers could compensate for the new and changing ways people communicate and use the Internet. A larger and more efficient network would help to alleviate some of these problems, but that would require a substantial investment. Why not give companies tax incentives for improving and expanding our nation's current network infrastructure, either through investment in certain projects or through actually taking on the projects themselves? These projects could even create jobs in these dire economic times.
Another obstacle the FCC is facing is the landmark court ruling in the Comcast case. In short, this ruling did not allow ISP's like Comcast to fall under the same regulations as land line type companies, and therefore said that the FCC doesn't have any authority to regulate things like prices, network management prices, etc. Essentially, they said that Comcast is NOT a telecommunications company. But as our everyday lives become more and more dependent on the Internet (like what happened with the telephone), shouldn't we change the outdated laws, regulations and definitions to reflect the reality of our world today?
All in all, the new rules are a good start, but far from perfect. I may be unclear on every single detail of this issue, but I do know this: we have to do something, and I'm more in favor of policies and practices that protect the average man rather than the large multi-billion dollar corporations. The only group that is happy with the newly proposed rules are the nation's largest cable and telecommunications companies. That's a big reason why these new rules raised red flags for me. They have the most money to throw at the issue, so logic would tell you that the new rules have enough loopholes in them for those companies to exploit. If you want to support the pro-net-neutrality cause, I've provided some links below to related sites. I also welcome any comments, suggestions or corrections anybody might have.
www.publicknowledge.org
www.commoncause.org
www.mediaaccess.org
The National Cable and Telecommunications Association
No comments:
Post a Comment