So I was bouncing around the Net looking at different perspectives on the topic of the moment, Net Neutrality, and I found an interesting source for inspiration, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). Now while I generally disagree with their so-called "liberal" ideals while the take money for the very entities the condemn, this is not bad so from their fingers to your eyes...Here You Go!
Net Neutrality: Myths and Facts Myth: Net Neutrality would, for the first time, regulate the Internet. FACT: Massive innovation on the Internet since its creation occurred under pre-2005 Net Neutrality protection. Until last year's Supreme Court Brand X decision, telephone and cable based Internet operators were required to make Internet service "available on nondiscriminatory terms and conditions to all comers." Net Neutrality simply restores long-standing prior law.
MYTH: Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. FACT: There are numerous examples of network providers engaging in content or user discrimination that will only grow without Net Neutrality. This year, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy campaign opposing AOL's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. Similarly, BellSouth has blocked its customers' access to MySpace.com in Tennessee and Florida. Net discrimination is real and happening every day.
MYTH: Net Neutrality will stifle innovation on the Internet.FACT: Today's vibrant Internet economy resulted from Net Neutrality protection during the Internet's infancy. Net Neutrality spurred innovation and commerce by preventing large companies from leveraging market power to stifle competition from smaller, dynamic web innovators.
MYTH: Network operators are protecting consumers.FACT: Like any monopoly or oligopoly, network operators want to maximize their profits and minimize competition at the consumer's expense. Network providers opposed to Net Neutrality such as AT&T, BellSouth, Comcast, Sprint, Time Warner, and Verizon have already shown they cannot be trusted to self-regulate in the interest of consumers in either content or cost.
MYTH: Net Neutrality will cause broadband networks to be abandoned. FACT: Net Neutrality promotes broadband development by increasing Internet services and applications that generate new consumer demand. The increased demand for broadband resulting from Net Neutrality will lead to more investment in the next generation broadband networks, including the continued growth of fiber-optic cable.
MYTH: Yahoo and Google get a "free ride" from network operators. FACT: These Internet companies pay much more than the average web operator because their sites use greater bandwidth from host sites than other operators. There is nothing wrong with bandwidth purchasing plans based upon usage. Net Neutrality simply ensures that network operators cannot play favorites with their own services.
MYTH: Net Neutrality interferes with network management. FACT: There is no evidence that this occurred prior to last year, when Net Neutrality was protected. Telephone companies have been able to regulate and manage their networks for years under "common carrier" regulations much more stringent than those proposed by Net Neutrality.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
What is the Human Factor in Net Neutrality?
A friend of a friend recently asked me for help in describing Net Neutrality in order to get a comment published in a local Bay Area news site that focuses on unearthing graft, greed, and corruption in city and county politics. There’s a great comment on the front page that I want to quote:
Democracy is a continuing experiment that will fail in the absence of an informed electorate that exercises the right to vote. Election results are seldom to everyone’s liking but since all have agreed to abide by the result even if not the one they advocated, society continues to function in an orderly fashion. Most of the population continues to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. A main ingredient of being well informed is the willingness to accept the right of a full expression of free speech, which in its purest essence is the belief that good speech will prevail over bad speech, and that eventually good speech will drive bad speech away.
Not only is this a beautiful sentiment on its face, but it cuts to the heart of what the Net Neutrality debate is all about. A free and open Internet not only guarantees that commerce and business will grow, but that the exchange of ideas on a global level will continue to increase at astonishing rates every moment of every day. Think about it–how awesome is it that I can write this and you can read it from all corners of the Earth?
While I don’t see an immediate end to free speech if Net Neutrality isn’t preserved, there is a clear reality that telecom companies will not only prioritize services to higher-paying customers (and is willing to write crappy faux research papers to prove its point), but will enforce control of the content they favor as well. As I’ve previously written, AT&T is absoulutely not to be trusted when it comes to the rights of its customers, and given that it controls the vast breadth of the American telecommunications landscape, who else will you trust? Verizon? Sprint? Qwest?
We don’t have enough choices in the market to simply say “I’ll take my business elsewhere.” This is the fundamental end result of a monopoly–when there’s only a few companies that control many outlets, you have to fight for your access at every step of the path. Matt Stoller posted a great interview with Free Press' Ben Scott wherein he discusses how the locked iPhone/AT&T contract is emblematic of how AT&T wants to handle the internet.
The government has been little to no help in this regard, with the Federal Trade Commission issuing a massive and ponderous report that basically boiled down to "We should trust the markets and not interfere. The FCC, which under current chair Kevin Martin has proven itself an ardent foe of net neutrality and a friend to telecoms everywhere, has been forced to reevaluate its position under grilling from congress and a massive grassroots public campaign. The FCC is concluding its solicitation of comment for the issue this week, so your best bet is to contact your Congressman and Senator and let them know how important this is to our country’s economic and political future.
The Internet is that rare mix of both government and business that works–it combines public-sector service (and tax dollars) with private innovation to create a platform for virtually anything you can think of. Not only does it empower business to thrive and create in ways we never would have imagined even twenty years ago, but it’s the ultimate tool for sharing ideas, building communities, and shrinking the global divide. Whether you’re Google or smaller blogger like me, the Internet enables you to put your name out there for anyone to listen, and your ideas to be defended or defeated by public opinion. Imagine–the marketplace of ideas, where your content is all that matters. What a concept!
And it’s a concept that I simply do not trust AT&T to protect and defend. And that means we need to stand up and fight for it.
Democracy is a continuing experiment that will fail in the absence of an informed electorate that exercises the right to vote. Election results are seldom to everyone’s liking but since all have agreed to abide by the result even if not the one they advocated, society continues to function in an orderly fashion. Most of the population continues to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. A main ingredient of being well informed is the willingness to accept the right of a full expression of free speech, which in its purest essence is the belief that good speech will prevail over bad speech, and that eventually good speech will drive bad speech away.
Not only is this a beautiful sentiment on its face, but it cuts to the heart of what the Net Neutrality debate is all about. A free and open Internet not only guarantees that commerce and business will grow, but that the exchange of ideas on a global level will continue to increase at astonishing rates every moment of every day. Think about it–how awesome is it that I can write this and you can read it from all corners of the Earth?
While I don’t see an immediate end to free speech if Net Neutrality isn’t preserved, there is a clear reality that telecom companies will not only prioritize services to higher-paying customers (and is willing to write crappy faux research papers to prove its point), but will enforce control of the content they favor as well. As I’ve previously written, AT&T is absoulutely not to be trusted when it comes to the rights of its customers, and given that it controls the vast breadth of the American telecommunications landscape, who else will you trust? Verizon? Sprint? Qwest?
We don’t have enough choices in the market to simply say “I’ll take my business elsewhere.” This is the fundamental end result of a monopoly–when there’s only a few companies that control many outlets, you have to fight for your access at every step of the path. Matt Stoller posted a great interview with Free Press' Ben Scott wherein he discusses how the locked iPhone/AT&T contract is emblematic of how AT&T wants to handle the internet.
The government has been little to no help in this regard, with the Federal Trade Commission issuing a massive and ponderous report that basically boiled down to "We should trust the markets and not interfere. The FCC, which under current chair Kevin Martin has proven itself an ardent foe of net neutrality and a friend to telecoms everywhere, has been forced to reevaluate its position under grilling from congress and a massive grassroots public campaign. The FCC is concluding its solicitation of comment for the issue this week, so your best bet is to contact your Congressman and Senator and let them know how important this is to our country’s economic and political future.
The Internet is that rare mix of both government and business that works–it combines public-sector service (and tax dollars) with private innovation to create a platform for virtually anything you can think of. Not only does it empower business to thrive and create in ways we never would have imagined even twenty years ago, but it’s the ultimate tool for sharing ideas, building communities, and shrinking the global divide. Whether you’re Google or smaller blogger like me, the Internet enables you to put your name out there for anyone to listen, and your ideas to be defended or defeated by public opinion. Imagine–the marketplace of ideas, where your content is all that matters. What a concept!
And it’s a concept that I simply do not trust AT&T to protect and defend. And that means we need to stand up and fight for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
