Net Neutrality - Why Should You Care?
NewsAdmin Staff Writer

If you look around these days, almost every form of mass communication is controlled by a small collection of very large companies. Two thirds of the independent newspapers have disappeared since 1975, and more than half of all U.S. papers are operated by a single publisher. Prior to the 1996 Telecommunications Act a corporation could own no more than 65 stations, now Clear Channel Communications controls over 1,200 stations. Ten of the largest TV station owners went from controlling 104 stations to 299 stations in the span of a few short years. I'm not suggesting that the sky is falling (not yet anyways) but it's a little unsettling to realize that much of what we read, hear and see in the U.S. is being controlled by a small collection of companies, and unfortunately the Internet appears to be heading in a similar direction.

Up to this point we've had the freedom to type in a URL or a server address and connect to our favorite Internet destination without much restriction. This arrangement has been preserved by something called Net Neutrality, which promotes an open Internet by preventing ISPs from controlling your connection performance to online content and services. It ensures our freedom of choice, allowing us to come and go on the Internet as we please, accessing whatever we want, whenever we want. In this environment Internet access providers exist to move data in and out of their networks, as opposed to establishing a bias that impedes connections to certain types of content, services or sites.

Unfortunately if the nation's largest telephone & cable companies have their way that's all going to change. There's a tremendous amount of money yet to be made from the online world, and companies such as Comcast, Time Warner and AT&T want that revenue by controlling the Internet traffic that drives it. It may sound like a conspiracy theory to some, but if you look at recent changes these corporations have made to their policies and how they plan to deliver service in the future, it's not such a far fetched idea.

Some of these companies subjectively delay connections (throttling) to outside content & services. As an example Cox Communications recently announced that they plan to delay connections to Bit Torrent and Usenet newsgroups. Not a big deal if you don't use either service, but what happens when Cox decides to apply the same restrictions to online content & services that do interest you? One day you're downloading movies from Netflix at full speed, and the next day your connection speed is cut in half because Cox wants to encourage customers to use a more expensive video service operated by one of their partners.

Rather than throttle connections, companies such as Time Warner are implementing monthly capacity limits on their customer accounts. The caps range from 5GB to 40GB per month, include uploads and downloads, and any overages will incur a $1 charge for every GB that exceeds the cap. When you consider that it's not uncommon for someone to download +100GB a month from the newsgroups, a cap of this nature could make it too expensive for Time Warner customers to connect to their favorite Usenet provider. These corporations could effectively put independent Usenet providers out of business, leave their staff unemployed, and trample over personal freedoms with a single account cap. In broader terms these capacity limits could discourage people from accessing a variety of sites... photo sharing sites such as Flickr or Facebook, music download sites such as iTunes, movie sites such as Netflix... essentially anyone that offers competing content or services.

If these corporations are allowed to ignore the principals of Net Neutrality, consumer choice and free market will be replaced by a few telephone and cable companies deciding what we see, hear & read on the Internet. They'll provide the menu, and you'll ultimately have to choose from the limited selection of content and services they choose to serve. Independent businesses, entrepreneurs, mom & pop sites will either be bought out, forced to pay a fee to make their content accessible, or they'll simply disappear. Without competition and consumers driving the development of better products, better services, better technology, these corporations will turn the Internet into a vehicle for distributing their own content and advertising.

In February 2008 the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" was introduced in Congress with the intent of protecting Net Neutrality, and expanding the scope of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to respond to violations of Net Neutrality principles as they arise. This bill was not heard in the previous session of Congress, but is expected to be voted upon in the Senate and House this year. Two weeks ago Senator Diane Feinstein attempted to add an amendment to the economic stimulus package that would give ISPs the ability to control Internet connections by way of "reasonable network management", leaving folks to wonder if a telecommunications lobbyist has her ear. Feinstein's amendment did not find a home in the stimulus bill that landed on the Senate floor, but she's expected to take another run at the amendment through a conference committee, which are typically used to backdoor language into a bill. With that in mind, we urge everyone to contact their representatives in Congress and remind them of your personal freedoms and Net Neutrality.

Return to the main "News & Commentary" index