This post is yet another entry summarizing proceedings of the National Conference for Media Reform in Memphis, Tennessee. The conference is sponsored by Free Press. [1]
A panel presented yesterday was entitled “Saving the Internet.” [At his plenary speech, Bill Moyers has suggested an alternate way of designating this issue: “equal access to the Internet.”] At the panel presentation, Tim Wu summarized the concept of net neutrality issue. Tim is a professor at Columbia Law School who specializes in telecommunications law and copyright. In 2006, he wrote a book titled Who Controls the Internet. [2]
Wu explain that the Internet is a meritocratic network. It is a place where we don’t need permission to speak. The aim of “net neutrality” is “to protect this no-permission” aspect of the Internet. The electric network of the Internet, itself, is a second form of neutrality. The idea is that any compatible device should be allowed to be connected to the network.
The function of net neutrality is to protect the Internet from incursions by phone companies and cable providers. If they had their way, the Internet will become like cable companies or “like the Chinese Internet,” where the provider tells you how you can use the network.
Wu previously worked with a telecommunications company. He was not proud of this, but admitted that his job was to try to sell ways to discriminate use based on content. Ironically, this is exactly what he is now concerned about. That is why he wrote a seminal paper on this topic of net neutrality, a abstruse-seeming paper that was originally passed around at dialogical conferences.
Net neutrality is not merely academic, however. Cable and phone providers have already tried to implement a variety of restrictions into the use of their networks. For instance, prior to 2002, some telecommunications contracts prohibited WiFi. Others prohibited certain computer game services.
In 2002, Michael Powell of the FCC (who has been vigorously criticized for his failure to prohibit consolidation of corporate ownership of the media) refused to allow telecommunications companies to restrict the way in which the Internet was used. At issue in 2002 was the voice-over IP service, Vonage, which constituted competition to the provider of the Internet service. Based on that decision, consumers had gained a right to nondiscriminatory use of the Internet.
In 2006, AT&T proceeded with its plans to reconstitute itself as it was in 1984. Its plan was to implement two-tier Internet service, a better level and a worse level of service. To get the better level of service, one must pay additional fees. This would have changed the Internet from a permission-less network to one requiring permission.
Wu compared this tactic to a common practice in the 1960s and 70s: back then, phone companies made it illegal to attach phones to the network other than the phone at the phone company rented to you for an exorbitant rate.
According to net neutrality, the provider must treat everything on the Internet the same. A user can use the Internet in any way he or she wants. Every blog should be as reachable as a big site, such as MSNBC.
As AT&T was buying BellSouth, FCC Commissioner Cox forced AT&T (the largest technology company in the world) to agree to net neutrality for two years. AT&T agreed to this, and is merely waiting for the “winds to die down. Wu warned the audience “don’t let the winds died down. Users of the Internet “should be freely able to reach whatever content they want.”
Another speaker at the same presentation was Adam Green of Move-on. Move-on is now one of 800 diverse organizations advocating net neutrality. Green emphasized that, currently, “you don’t need provider permission to reach any site you want.”
Green detail the history of net neutrality. At the beginning of the dispute, a small telecom subcommittee in Congress voted 23 to eight against net neutrality. Based upon an incredible amount of advocacy by the 800 organizations and their members, a larger subcommittee of Congress reversed this original vote and saved the Internet, for now.
For much more information regarding net neutrality, see savetheinternet.com [3].
Green emphasized that we all need to stay active on this issue to make sure that we are on top of things two years from now when the telecoms come back looking to eviscerate net neutrality again.
Print this post [4]
[5]