August, 2010
nthWORD– “The neutral communications medium is essential to our
society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis
of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of
science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect
the neutrality of the net.”– Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, from his blog in 2006.
The invention of the Internet has arguably been one of the
most significant technological achievements in the history of human
communications, alongside of the printing press and the telephone. It has
restructured the way people live and provides the opportunity for a
disconnected and fragmented public to revolutionize into an interconnected,
globally integrated civilization. Billions of people now live more productively
by having instantaneous communication and unfettered access to information of
their choosing.
Since its inception, the unregulated medium of the Internet
has always adhered to the fundamental principle of “Net Neutrality”- the notion
that all websites, from mega corporations to backroom bloggers, have an equal
opportunity to reach people online. Under this principle, every website,
regardless of the site’s material and amount of data, is given
non-discriminatory treatment from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like
Comcast and Verizon.
A 2006 poll taken by Glover Park
Group revealed that 93%
of Americans had never heard of the term “Net Neutrality.” The underreporting
of this issue could be due to the fact that the corporations pushing to
eliminate this online freedom -the ISPs- also guide
most of what the American public sees, hears and reads in the mainstream media.
These companies have been drooling at the Web’s potential
for raking in tons of money by eliminating Net Neutrality. In its place
the Telecoms intend to create a tiered system of access that will make web
users “pay to play,” charging more than we pay now for different levels of
speed, accessibility, and quality of service. This would cause greater economic
stratification by discriminating against low income households who lack the
finances to utilize the Internet for education and employment. According to
2009 Commerce Department figures,
26% of Americans already can’t afford to subscribe to high speed Internet at
the rate we pay now.
The controlled system of access will also reduce the
representation of minorities in our communities, shutting out vital
perspectives. Only 46% of African Americans and 40% of Hispanics use broadband,
compared to 66% of Caucasians.
Even though America invented the World Wide Web, this
country has fallen far behind other
developed countries in Internet speed. Japan’s Internet speed is up to 30
times faster than the US, and many European nations have access that is 10
times faster on average. We already pay
more for the service. The lowest Internet price on average in America is
typically $35 a month on average for a 1 megabit connection. Speeds twice this
fast are offered in Canada and Denmark for cheaper. Hong Kong, Taiwan, and
Sweden all have broadband access for less than $20 a month.
In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) confronted
Comcast for abusing the principle of Net Neutrality, by blocking content and
slowing user access to certain file sharing websites.
Comcast contested the FCC’s ruling in court, resulting in a
high profile case that has placed Net Neutrality in a state of emergency. In
April of this year, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the
FCC does not have the authority to enforce a neutral Internet, leaving the web
more vulnerable than ever before to corporate consolidation. This means that
the ISPs that provide and sell Internet access to the public could have the
enhanced power of also controlling the limitations of your Internet experience,
by deciding what you see and use online.
Salon.com blogger Saturn Smith provides
an example for potential abuse-
“The ruling opens the door for
companies to be able to slow or even block traffic to competing sites. For
instance, Comcast currently runs a site called Fancast. Fancast is like Hulu,
only well, less awesome. It offers TV episodes and movies, some news and
entertainment stuff, and a lot of advertising for Comcast. Who’s to say now
that Comcast wouldn’t make sure that anyone trying to access Hulu found it very
slow going?”
Without Net Neutrality, higher costs will be imposed on
hosting websites that use more space and bandwidth, and ISPs can start charging
fees to companies for higher priority access speeds to their networks or their
customers. This could lead to significantly slower access to independent
websites and small startup businesses that cannot afford to pay the price
hikes, eliminating the ability of the “small guy” to reach the same Internet
consumer base as the larger corporations.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act protected a
neutral Internet until the April court ruling. In June, the FCC fought
back with a proposal backed by the Open
Internet Coalition to reaffirm their authority in regulating broadband.
They opened a procedure to debate its legal capabilities in overseeing
telecommunications under the existing legal framework. The FCC still needs the
legal backing to legitimize Net Neutrality and the ethical standard of an open
and free Internet, an impossible objective without the help of Congress.
However, due to intense pressure from telecom lobbyists,
much of Congress has aligned themselves with the telecom industry, even taking
action on their behalf; 74 Congressional Democrats and 171 Congressional
Republicans recently presented stern letters to the FCC urging
them to abandon their Net Neutrality enforcement and leave the matter to
Congress-
“[Regulation
of broadband] should not be done without additional direction
from Congress. We urge you not to move forward with a proposal that undermines critically important investment in broadband and
the jobs that come with it.”
Unfortunately, the telecommunications companies invest big
money in attempt to sway Congress. Five of the biggest telecom corporations in
the country- Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast, and Qwest collectively lobbied $218
million dollars to our Representatives and shelled out $23.7 million in
campaign contributions from 2006-2008.
Now that the recent court decision and FCC rebuttal have
left the Net Neutrality issue open ended, telecom firms are seizing on the
uncertain future of the Web and are planning
to hit Congress soon with another lobbying bonanza to ensure they get what they
want.
All 74 Congressional Democrats that signed the letter to the
FCC have received
an average of $50,000 from phone and cable corporations. Representative Gene
Green, who pushed through the Democrat’s letter, has received $111,199 from
lobbying by the telecom industry.
The Representatives that spearheaded the Republicans’ letter
to the FCC, Cliff Stearns and Joe Barton, have already collectively received
over $177,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T, and $66,000 from Comcast
in the last year alone. The other Republican signatories have similar campaign
donation figures.
The respective letters to the FCC contain
the typical anti-Net Neutrality disinformation that is spread through numerous
fake grassroots -“astroturf”- organizations
funded by the telecom industry. The main talking points are that Net Neutrality
would bring heavy-handed government regulation, stifle innovation and reduce
financial investment from telecom companies for improved broadband access.
In reality, the Internet is one step away from being
regulated – by either the government making Net Neutrality a law, or from the
telecom industry, which would gain full control to manage and restrict their
networks without bureaucratic ramifications.
The government is a third party that is tasked with
protecting the rights of American citizens. It is their responsibility to
represent and act on behalf of their constituent base. Making Net Neutrality a
law would prevent the telecom business from impeding free speech and access to
information by making sure the Internet stays open and unrestricted.
Google, YouTube and Amazon flourished into incredibly
successful online business models by starting off as small startups. A neutral
Internet provides
an equal playing field for the cultivation of new ideas. More importantly, it
enables new ideas to prosper amongst the already established “big guys,”
allowing for the development of and investment for new products and services
and a competitive flow in the marketplace, in turn improving users’ options for
better prices and higher quality of service.
The ethical imperative of Net Neutrality is about preventing
private industries from having the ability to censor information based on their
commercial interests. As citizens of this country, we should have the right to
freely access information of our choosing, unimpeded and uncensored.
For the past three years, Representative Ed Markey has
presented Net Neutrality legislation that would safeguard the Internet’s open
future, but the bill has yet to make it past a House Committee. The
preservation of Internet freedom will remain hanging in the balance until there
is a strong constituency base demanding Congress to take action.
Unless people become involved with this issue, Capitalism
will run roughshod.
The Internet is a powerful democratic tool providing citizens with
the ability to instantly share information. When armed with knowledge, people
are more likely to become active citizens engaged with their society, and this
is exactly what the power structure wants to prevent.
You can help by joining a network of 1 million + citizens for a neutral Internet at Save The Internet.
Abby Martin is a freelance writer, citizen journalist,
activist and artist living in Oakland, CA. You can find more about her media
projects at www.MediaRoots.org and check out
her artwork at www.AbbyMartin.org
Photo by Abby Martin
REDDING NEWS– The folks who deliver beer and other beverages to liquor stores have
joined the fight against legalizing marijuana in California.
NY TIMES
