In this current age of technology, the Internet is the number one source of information. You can find practically anything that you want, from a grilled cheese imprinted with the face of the Virgin Mary, to pictures of cats with grammatically incorrect captions. And everyone seems to take that luxury for granted, what if we were limited to viewing whatever content our Internet Service Provider (ISP) believed to be appropriate? This is already starting to happen as we speak. Just yesterday, November 29, Comcast started demanding that Level 3 Communications pay Comcast fees when Comcast’s customers give the site traffic (Level 3 Communications). There are no justifiable reasons to tread on the toes of free speech by giving priority to large online megacorps that can afford these fees while small start-up companies cannot. All of these companies started out small and in order to foster a democratic economy for the world, corporate ISPs cannot be given control of what content a person sees on the internet.
In its current state, the Internet is a completely neutral ground for most countries. This means that all data is treated equally and no preference is given to, say, a video conference call between the US and Russia and someone illegally downloading a movie. And this was the principle that the Internet was forged by. In 1990, around the advent of the Internet, Bill Gates said in a memo that “he foresaw a highway rich in computer networks over which hundreds of services would be offered, and through which people, businesses, and government would freely interact” (Wallace 96). And not only that, but laws were made requiring companies to “allow end users to choose any ISP, and utilize any device, they desired” (Cerf 4). The Internet is meant to be an open ground for everyone to be able to construct whatever they wish and view whatever everyone else has constructed without interference from a “Gatekeeper.”
In its current state, the Internet is a completely neutral ground for most countries. This means that all data is treated equally and no preference is given to, say, a video conference call between the US and Russia and someone illegally downloading a movie. And this was the principle that the Internet was forged by. In 1990, around the advent of the Internet, Bill Gates said in a memo that “he foresaw a highway rich in computer networks over which hundreds of services would be offered, and through which people, businesses, and government would freely interact” (Wallace 96). And not only that, but laws were made requiring companies to “allow end users to choose any ISP, and utilize any device, they desired” (Cerf 4). The Internet is meant to be an open ground for everyone to be able to construct whatever they wish and view whatever everyone else has constructed without interference from a “Gatekeeper.”
The argument against this status quo is slightly convoluted, but it can be understood if it’s broken down into its constituent points. First, one must think of the bandwidth an ISP has as a large pipe that everyone on that network’s content is sent through. As Senator Ted Stevens said: one must think of the Internet as if “It’s a series of tubes. And […] those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material” (Stevens qtd. in Your Own Personal Internet). Net-neutrality opponents are claiming that because of the heavy traffic that sites like Google and Youtube receive, ISPs should receive additional compensation from those sites because of the large percentage of the “tube” they’re using. AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre “insisted that Google and other companies “use my lines for free, and that’s bull.” He then warned that “I ain’t going to let them do that” because “there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using” (Cerf 5). Whitacre feels that his company is not already receiving full compensation for its services and that for online companies to have their content shown, they must pay for that luxury. In summary, opponents of network neutrality feel that ISPs’ networks are becoming overcrowded with traffic to sites that pay them nothing and the solution to this is to “tier” the Internet.
Their proposal is to change the Internet from its current form into bandwidth that is split into a “regular user” tier and a “priority user” tier. So for whoever is willing to pay the extra fines, they would have access to an accelerated “toll lane” while everyone else could only use what would be a dirt road in comparison (Cerf 6). And if, say, Qwest didn’t want to pay Comcast money to have their content available on Comcast’s accelerated bandwidth, then Comcast could legally only allow Qwest’s website to be available where it would take forever and a half to load.
Basically, all of these arguments against net-neutrality are preposterous. And the only reason there is a debate over this is because major ISPs complain about the costs of maintaining and upgrading their networks to keep up with the growing number of users. Instead of doing the expensive project of connecting everything through fiber-optics (where data is literally sent at the speed of light) and “unclogging” the tubes, they would rather increase their profits doubly (Cerf 6). First of, it doesn’t improve the Quality of Service (QoS) for the consumer whatsoever if they have to pay even more money to be able to access major sites like Google quickly. And the most ridiculous side of their argument is demanding large online companies like Google pay money to the ISPs that their content is loaded by just for the priviledge of having their content loaded (Don’t Regulate the Internet). Google cannot control its popularity on any given day and it isn’t actually using any of the ISP’s services. All that happens is an user sends a request to their network to load content from a site, and the network loads that content from the site’s servers. All of the bandwidth that is used is at the request of the user, so it would essentially be penalizing a company for having customers. If anyone should have to pay for using a lot of bandwidth, the only fair option is the consumer (Cerf 6). The only service charging online companies money would do is create a triple recovery of losses for the large and mostly uregulated ISPs. One from regular consumer service charges, a second from the “toll lane” bandwidth option, and third from online companies who aren’t even customers of the ISP.
When the laws were made about having to “allow end users to choose any ISP, and utilize any device they desired,” ISPs were then given the right “to purchase retail telecommunications services from the local carriers on nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions” (Cerf 4). So what the ISPs have been able to charge customers has never been a regulated amount. And in the minds of most modern Americans, any business regulation is “bad” (Don’t Regulate the Internet). Sadly, they seem to be forgetting how there are laws against business monopolies taking advantage of customers for a reason. Ray Lin explains that “The free market only works if there is ample competition. As studies show, 98 percent of American have two choices or less for broadband service, and is a situation as then House of Representatives Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Sensenbrenner calls “a virtual duopoly” that requires a “clear anti-trust remedy” (Lin 3). When we have so few options for who we become a customer of, and they are asking for an excuse to make their competition’s content harder to access while making more money, it is clear that fair business practices are not being followed.
Yes, the Internet has worked up until now without regulation, but yes, it will take some small governmental regulation against ISP monopolies in order to preserve this complex ecosystem that is full of innovation. Tim Berners-Lee, one of the Internet’s legendary creators, acknowledges that “yes, regulation to keep the Internet open is regulation. And, mostly, the Internet has thrived on lack of regulation. But some basic values have to be preserved. The market system depends on the fact that you can’t photocopy money. Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet” (Tim Berners-Lee (M.I.T.), Father of the World Wide Web). We don’t let Windows prevent compatibility with iPods, and we most certainly don’t make gas stations in the middle of the desert pay for having the privilege of having a road that was already built be there. So why would we let things like this happen on the Internet? Say no to triple profits for ISPs without them improving their quality of service. It’s against the founding principles of America and the Internet to make it harder for small businesses to become large businesses because they can’t pay to have their content accessible.
Works Cited
Cerf, Vinton G. "Prepared Statement of Vinton G. Cerf Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist Google Inc." Http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf. 7 Feb. 2006. Web. 4 Nov. 2010.
"Your Own Personal Internet." Wired News. 30 June 2006. Web. 17 Nov. 2010. <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2006/06/your_own_person/>.
Lin, Ray. "Network Neutrality." Open Computing Facility at University of California, Berkeley. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/>.
"Network Neutrality." Public Knowledge. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/network-neutrality>.
Wallace, James. Overdrive: Bill Gates and the Race to Control Cyberspace. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, 1997. Print.
"Don't Regulate the Internet." DontRegulate.org. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.dontregulate.org/>.
Tim Berners-Lee (M.I.T.), Father of the World Wide Web. Perf. Tim Berners-Lee. YouTube. 20 Aug. 2006. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jev2Um-4_TQ>.
Level 3 Communications. Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions. Level 3 Communications. 29 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.level3.com/index.cfm?pageID=491&PR=962>.
No comments:
Post a Comment