4th
The bleak future of the Internet
The Columbia Chronicle - link
Originally published: May 1, 2006
Gun owners and librarians are not exactly two groups that regularly unite on hotly debated issues, but the two factions of both the far right and far left ends of the political spectrum are agreeing in the debate about “net neutrality.”
Net neutrality involves keeping Internet content free from the control of major telecommunication providers, such as Verizon and AT&T.
Consider what is available now on the Internet, and imagine how access to whatever website anybody wanted to visit could be affected simply because a company providing their online service preferred you visited an alternative. The strongest argument for net neutrality is the very fact that the telecommunications industry is opposed to it.
Many groups have voiced their support of net neutrality, with the exception of some members of one critical decision-making body: the U.S. Congress.
Last Wednesday, the House Commerce Committee took the first step toward passing legislation that would give control to the telecommunications industry. Congressmen should oppose the full bill when it finally goes to the House floor.
The Internet has provided a variety of innovative methods for communication around the globe, and the fundamental concept of net neutrality is to retain that sense of innovation by keeping it free from telephone and cable companies controlling how it is used. So why would anybody want to change a system that has served us so well?
The argument of telecommunication companies relies on the quality of access they can deliver. And indeed, technology such as video on demand requires huge financial investments. But judging from the historical battle between phone companies, there is absolutely no reason to believe that these businesses won’t favor their own financial interests over future innovation. The results would be devastating.
As it is, the Internet currently is an ideal example of the free market economy that America prides itself on. A company could invest an amount in the billions in starting a website, or a college student could create a blog at no price whatsoever. Both could end up becoming enormously popular, but that decision would be the result of a public that can freely view them. The playing field could not be more level.
But without net neutrality, the scenario is completely different. Suddenly, the Internet becomes another version of cable television: The material available is dictated by the opinion of a gatekeeper.
The Internet’s power has granted equal access to everybody, and the natural danger is that power is also granted to those who might abuse it. But that reality should not be used to create legislation that would allow the nation’s largest telephone and cable companies to dictate the level of service for the websites we choose to visit. If visits to a particular search engine is more financially advantageous for say, Comcast, there is no reason to believe that the provider would ensure that their preferred system gets the best service.
This is not to mention the deplorable serving of special interests involved by the legislation’s “bipartisan” sponsors. The Democrat is Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush, whose Englewood community center received a $1 million grant from the “charitable arm of SBC/AT&T,” according to the Chicago Sun-Times. And if there’s any question about how dedicated Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, is to the public’s best interests, consider what he told the New York Times nearly one year ago when the House of Representatives approved a $12 million bill that decreased restrictions on energy companies for oil production. Upon being asked about urging consumers to help reduce demand by driving less, Barton replied, “If you want to tell them that, go ahead. I want to be re-elected.”
The best solution may have been outlined by the Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum. In pointing out that current legislation involves a case by case “rear view window look” to rules involving the Internet, Drum said, “Conversely, if the federal government subsidized the whole thing at the cost of a few billion dollars a year, just as they did with the interstate highway system half a century ago, we could build an Internet backbone that would be cheap, universal, public and a huge boost to the American economy. The feds don’t even have to own it, they just have to pay for it.”
If the government essentially privatizes the Internet as we know it, there’s no telling the price we all will pay.
