Save the Internet (or not)
[Updated: See below] The Internet is the great leveler in our global society. It gives everyone everywhere a way to speak out, a way to make their voice heard. It provides those who might not be taken seriously because of their skin color, their gender, their ethnicity, or their bank account an opportunity to participate in the great conversation. It gives virtual anonymity to those whose lack of real power makes them frightened to speak up, to speak out. The Internet, more than anything else in the history of technology, creates a virtual space where speech is finally, and essentially, free.
If AT&T and Verizon have their way, though, the Internet will become hierarchical. There will be two Internets. One for the rich, and one for the poor.
Think about paying for the Internet the way you pay for cable. Instead of paying a flat fee to get access to all of the Internet, there will be different “packages” that will give you access to different sites. Perhaps your Internet provider has a contract with Yahoo. That would mean you would have to pay extra to use Google.
Further, if you do decide to use Google, not only might you have to pay extra for it, but it wouldn’t work as well either. The telecom companies want websites to pay them a premium for better delivery to your computer. With that kind of Internet tollbooth, do you think the blogosphere or any of the Internet start-ups will survive? They won’t have the cash to pay the tolls, and readers and consumers won’t come because it’s too much of a pain in the ass for the sites to download. The Internet, just like America, will become homogenous. We’ll stop calling it the Internet, and start calling it Wal-Mart.
If the telecom lobbyists succeed, the Internet will become just another place where the rich have more power. No longer will the Internet represent the egalitarian utopia that societies have been searching for. Instead, it will just be one more place where the almighty dollar makes everything bow to its will.
And there is nothing good about that.
So sign the petition and tell Congress to keep the moneychangers out of the temple.
–
But I’m only telling one side of the issue here. While I definitely think their solution is a bad idea, I do feel that the telecom companies have a right to be heard.
In their article, “Coming Tug of War Over the Internet,” the Washington Post says the current uproar started when the AT&T Chairman, Edward Whiteacre, said this about Internet content providers:
They don’t have any fiber out there. They don’t have any wires. . . . They use my lines for free — and that’s bull. For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!’
The telecom companies have basically said that they’re not talking about the everyday Internet. Instead, they’re talking about a new Internet. The new Internet is what you’ll use to download movies and music from places such as the iTunes Music Store or Google Video. So you’ll still get what you’re getting now, but if you want any of the cool new things, you’ll have to pay extra for it.
This makes sense on a certain level. Google and Apple have not spent millions upon millions of dollars laying fiber-optic cables and building wireless towers, and yet they expect to use it for free. Why should the telecom companies get stuck with the bill?
–
So, what’s the solution? Should we support network neutrality or should we support the seemingly legitimate business concerns of the telecom companies?
The blogger over at One Man Shouting thinks we should support the former, but he may also have a solution that will solve the problems of the latter. He writes:
Throughout the history of this country, the government has had no qualms about using its power of eminent domain to build infrastructure that will serve the common good. That’s why we are able to have highways, decent roads, schools, public buildings, and many other institutions fairly well spread out through the country…The internet is infrastructure that serves the public good…If the actions of the owners of the network are beginning to threaten the public good, then the government has a responsibility to step in.
His solution is not for the FCC to take over the Internet, however, but for local goverments to act as an arbiter between the people and the telecoms. It seems his solution is similar to what has happened with the cable companies, where one company gets a contract for a locality, and then that’s what everyone in that locality has access to. If the people in the locality aren’t satisfied, they go find another vendor.
I don’t think it’s the perfect solution, but it may be a fair compromise.
–
[Update: Someone put together a YouTube video about the whole situation. Here it is.]