 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Brand New! Check out the Technical forum! Post your questions or help someone else with theirs! Administration (newest entry first) Administration (oldest entry first) New messages (newest message first) New messages (oldest messages first) Message archive (newest message first) Message archive (oldest message first)
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
 |
||
|
Net Neutrality The future of the Internet is teetering in the balance
While we sit comfortably in front of our microcomputers and search the web for whatever information has caught our interest there are people planning to make changes to what we can and cannot access. Changes that may take away forever the freedoms that we experience on the Internet today. The Internet of today
Right now, if you access a website page at NBC that provides gardening information your access to that website is done at the same speed as accessing that personal gardening tips website hosted by a little old lady in Pennsylvania. The speed of the connections are the same to both websites. Granted, one website might be hosted by a better provider and have faster equipment, but the speed in which your request are processed by the Internet carriers are the same. In addition, you are allowed to access either site. While I freely surf the Internet for information on this topic I am not hindered by my ISP (Internet Service Provider) from blocking or hindering my access to information based on a preferred customer basis. I am free to access anything and everything related to this topic. This may not be true in the near future. What has happened?
In 2005 the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) made a decision that threatened the neutrality of the Internet. Basically they removed the rules that forced Internet services to offer equal access. At around the same time the U.S. Supreme court in (National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services), upheld a decision by the FCC that cable modem services were subject to a much less stringent regulation than those for Title II telecommunications. In 2006 The House of Representatives passed a telecommunications reform bill that lacked the ability to enforce or protect “Net Neutrality ”. The definition of Net Neutrality itself is part of the issue. The generally accepted definition of the term is that Internet Service providers cannot discriminate against or ban access to any legal use of the Internet. A simplified definition can be found at the Wikipedia website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality However based on these legal changes telecommunications giants and cable companies have a green light to change the way they provide Internet access. They could easily create “tiered” systems. In a tiered system your Internet access provider can decide what websites get preferential treatment or faster access or what sites can be accessed at all. There is some confusion about the term “tiered system” Some ISP providers like our local Time Warner Cable service and other local DSL providers already offer tiers of service to consumers. You can ask for a cheaper lower speed connection, a normal connection and in some areas a turbo speed connection. In the case of cable, DSL and Dial-up providers you have choices concerning how much you pay for different levels of speed. However this “consumer” tier of service simply means that you get a slower or faster connection to the Internet. It does not vary the speed based on what site you access or limit what access you have based on a preferred customer or service list. Why do they want the change?
Simply put the argument is being made that these companies should be able to make a profit from the service they provide. Apparently the amount of money you and I are paying for Internet access is not enough to satisfy their investment in the future of Internet services. They sight claims of needing new fiber optic infrastructures to provide us with things like in-home live High Definition television and movies. They argue that by creating a tiered system they can charge companies for the preferential treatment or faster access by customers. The pitch to us is that by doing so we will get these enhancements at a reduced cost.
Big ISPN providers are not alone in the “sell” of this idea. There are many government officials and consumers that feel that the Internet should be left alone and out of the hands of government control. In addition some argue that these companies have every right to charge whatever they wish and to provide access according to their own interest. To quote senator John McCain of Arizona in his recent The Wall Street Journal’s D: All Things Digital interview. McCain says we should let the market and technology solve the Net Neutrality issue: “When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.” Senator McCain is not alone. There are organizations who fear government involvement of any kind. Opponents to Net Neutrality have their own organizations as well. Hands off the Internet is an organization strongly opposed to any government regulation of the Internet. They specifically site examples of why Net Neutrality should not be made into a law or regulation. In their fact page located at http://www.handsoff.org/blog/quick-facts they list many reasons. They sight existing laws that already protect us, the shrinking capacity of the Internet and the impact of job growth. What’s wrong with this?
Proponents of government regulation argue that without regulations governing the neutrality of Internet access there will be a dark future ahead for the Internet. There are many who fear that if these companies are allowed to create tiered systems the Internet freedoms we all enjoy will be lost forever. They further fear that once these tiered systems are in place it will be virtually impossible to reverse the damage even if laws change. To illustrate some of these potential fears let’s take the example given earlier. Let’s say you want some gardening tips. You type in the search information and your favorite search page shows the link to the website created by the grandmother in Pennsylvania. You click on the link for Granny’s Great Gardening Tips only to be presented with a dialog box that says “We are sorry, but Granny’s Great Gardening Tips is not a preferred site. You may click the link below to go to a preferred gardening site. If you would prefer to continue to the site you have selected you may do so, but please keep in mind that access may be significantly reduced.” Now suppose you really want Granny’s site so you click the continue button. You then wait fifteen minutes for Granny’s page to load or it never does.
How real is the threat? Although none of the ISPs have actively created a tiered system many are lobbying to stop regulations and prevent any form of Net Neutrality. Some large ISPs have simply put time limits on themselves. During a merger issue back in January AT&T made a proclamation that for 30 months after the merger's closure, it would not provide or sell "any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet" transmitted over its pipes based on its "source, ownership or destination." This stongly indicates that changes will be made in as little as 23 months from now. Not surprisingly there are some large corporate organizations backing the Net Neutrality cause. Companies such as Google and eBay want the legislation. After all, it would be easy to imagine that they envision absorbing most of these costs. Imagine Google or eBay having to pay Comcast, AOL Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon or any number of host providers to allow people to access their content at a reasonable or proffered speed.
The fear of having or not having a neutrality regulation has caused many organizations to speak out on the subject. Legislation put into place now could affect everyone. Educational institutions, non-profit organizations and businesses large or small all have a stake in what is decided.
Suppose you own a new business or an established medium to small business. You could be faced with a lot of advertising cost that previously did not exist. In addition to worrying about the search engines and where your website is placed, you could end up paying additional fees to every ISP provider. Unlike the search engines where you could build your site for better placement or climb the list based on the popularity of your website and services the ISP’s could shut you out. Your great website could get stuck into a slow lane or the ISPs could not provide access to your website at all unless you fork over their proffered customer fees.
How heated and important has this topic become? Issues of fair trade, legal regulation and the sense of fear that consumers may loose the freedoms they have taken for granted have fueled this controversy. To quote from a May 2006 press release on John Mccain’s website , “…fewer than 300 newspaper articles were written about net neutrality. By contrast, just in the last month, almost 500 articles have been written on Net Neutrality - along with about 1,800 blog entries.” In contrast, today a Google search on “Net Neutrality” will result in over two and a half million references.
Enough turmoil is occurring that the issue has also become a hot topic in the 2008 Democratic Candidates race. The FCC and FTC are being pressured to re-think and address the issues and current regulations. Internet blogs are getting bloated with opinions. Despite the fact that the chairman of the FCC Kevin Martin has reportidly stated more than once that he “doesn't see a need to draft specific regulations or legislation to protect the openness of the Internet.” the FCC anounced in March that it would take another look at the need and voted to issue a notice of inquiry on "broadband industry practices" that will include a discussion of an open Internet. Recently the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has gotten involved again. On June 27th in a report on Net Neutrality they announced that government officials should proceed with caution. The issue has become so heated that many related issues are before the varying government organizations are being stifled and stalled. Recently U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) made a move to block some telecommunications legislation that had already been approved by the senate commerce committee. His reason for the block was clear. “The bill makes a number of major changes in the country’s telecommunications law but there is one provision that is nothing more than a license to discriminate. Without a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet and without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate, the Internet will be forever changed for the worse.” According to a June 28th IDG news service posting on Infoworld “In May, 54 organizations, including Amazon.com and Tivo, called for a national broadband policy that includes net neutrality laws. Google's public policy blog, launched in late May, already includes several entries supporting net neutrality.” There is little time to waste if you want your opinion heard. You can see how your representatives and senators are voting by going to the map on the Save the Internet website at www.savetheinternet.com.
Additional Topic Resources:
FCC to study need for more Net Neutrality regulation http://news.com.com/2100-1036_3-6169719.html
FTC June report on Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy http://www.ftc.gov/reports/broadband/v070000report.pdf
A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES Position on Net Neutrality http://www.aau.edu/intellect/Stmt_AAU_NN_71806.pdf
Studies listed on Hands Off the Internet http://www.handsoff.org/blog/studies
Educause Net Neutrality http://connect.educause.edu/term_view/Net+Neutrality?time=1183128851
Road Runner (ISP) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_Runner_(ISP)
2008 Candidates Split Over ‘Net Neutrality’ http://www.freepress.net/news/23995
|
||
