Net Neutrality Resurfaces
February 15th, 2008 Richard Posted in net neutrality, web and new media | 6 Comments »
I’m not sure where I first heard about the net neutrality concept (as described by Tim Berners-Lee who invented the World Wide Web), but I really became drawn into the issue emotionally, since the violation of net neutrality seemed like it could have a huge negative impact on video blogging; which, of course, I’m passionate about. Being a professor and all, I was forced to have to study the subject in a lot more detail, and, of course, at one point I made a video about it, which was a response to a letter from Jo Ann Emerson, our U.S. representative , which was her response to my email urging her to support the Markey Ammendment, which supported network neutrality. Eventually, the St. Louis dispatch even included me in a story they did on network neutrality, which was cool.
The topic came up in the news again recently, when it was discovered that the second largest U.S. cable provider, Comcast, was blocking access to peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent. As a consequence of this and similar reports, U.S. Representative Ed Markey introduced a new bill that would add a new “Broadband” section to the 1934 Communications Act bill. The new section includes stuff like …
It is the policy of the United States to safeguard the open marketplace of ideas on the Internet by adopting and enforcing baseline protections to guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet.
The bill would also require the FCC to actively assess “broadband services and consumer rights” through stuff like public hearings.
This all seems good to me, by the way, and is strongly supported by the Save the Internet Coalition, but there are some net neutrality advocate tech types, who think that the bill does not go far enough, since there are no specifications on details, like consequences of violating net neutrality.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I think there are a couple of different linguistic issues going on for which clarification would help net neutrality efforts:
1. Internet vs. Web. Right now these two things are so very tangled up; witness the fact that Comcast was slowing down internet access for a specific application, the concern about the AT&T merger, etc. I think that strengthening the distinction between the internet layers and the applications that run over the internet (web, email, etc.) might make it more clear why people are concerned.
Perhaps the “superhighway” metaphor might be useful here: we have different speed limits for big trucks and we have curb-right-for-sirens-and-lights kinds of things, but we don’t largely have different speed limits for different vehicles (aside from profiling, etc.). If this is keeping the ISP’s from staying in business, then maybe we need to find some way to convert from private toll roads to a U.S. highway system.
2. The second issue is related: what kind of medium is the internet? What does the web “do”? One of the articles noted that cable internet got classified as an “information service” rather than a “telecom” service. What this means to me is that the companies have managed to frame the internet as kind of a broadcast medium, kind of a subscription library. I am thinking partly of being able to dial up to Lexus Nexus or something–the service gets to pick what information you need or have to pay extra for, etc. That class of things is centered on the provider. This is in contrast to a communication medium, like postal mail or signs or telephone, which should, I think, link into ideas like freedom of association and be centered on the users.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
[...] Web and New Media Blog wrote an interesting post today on Net Neutrality ResurfacesHere’s a quick excerptS. cable provider, Comcast, was blocking access to peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent…. [...]
February 17th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
This is a serious issue which I was not aware of. I just can’t even imagine what it would be like if the big companies are able to kill the net neutrality. Whichever way you look at it, the consequences would be devastating. I think people should be made aware of this looming danger and publicize the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2008 (HR 5353)”. The inventors of the World Wide Web intended the internet to be a neutral network and it should be. Without the net neutrality there would be no new innovations and we’ll have to put up with whatever the companies impose on us. The whole thing would be quite a nightmare!!! I was thinking about a line from one of John Mayer’s song, ‘waiting for the world to change’ and the lyric goes like, “when you trust your television, what you get is what you got cause when they own the information, they can bend it all they want”. When the companies own the internet, sky’s the limit…………..for them and we’re mere puppets!
Here’s a link for sending the petition to the members of congress for the net neutrality. https://secure2.convio.net/free/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=162
Let’s join hands to save internet.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:43 am
The net neutrality issue, for me, simply highlights the problems we have in this country around competition in the ISP arena. In Rolla I really only had one option for broadband at home (satellite is such a poor product I won’t count it as an alternative) and now in St. Louis I have a whopping two. I seriously doubt that the industry would be able to block bittorrent or start double-charging companies like Google to deliver data if there was a healthy market where competitors could steal market share by not implementing these policies.
And *IF* the bandwidth crunch is actually real, I still have a hard time feeling badly for providers in light of the fact that (I think) AT&T was given billions of taxpayer dollars to build out fiber that they failed to do and just pocketed our money. In the end, I think what is really needed is more competition perhaps coupled with some publicly funded infrastructure buildout that actually provided consequences for failure to deliver. But who am I kidding..? We’d just have telecom immunity part II, right?
February 18th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
I hadn’t thought about it, but this is a cool way to get your message to your representative or their assistant. It seems more tangible than a letter.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Basanta – Nice John Mayer reference.
I have never tried to understand the whole deal behind classic phone companies, cable companies, et al. Would just piss me off more. Just reminds me how intelligent of a society we are doing stupid crap to “defend our turf”. Wonder when the Jets and Sharks will dance, i mean fight it out. You hear snaps?