Crossposted at my personal blog
US broadband internet carriers are looking to thwart legislation that would prevent them from charging content providers access to their internet pipelines. The US Senate has recently been holding hearings on "network neutrality", legislation that will ensure equal access to all internet content. But the corporate powers that be are gearing up for a fight and the ramifications are significant.
According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets -- corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers -- would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.
Under the plans they are considering, all of us -- from content providers to individual users -- would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.
...
As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!" [Alternet]
Didn't these guys use tax dollars to fund fiber optic expansion? We already pay these goons a monthly internet access fee, and the charges they intend to levy on companies like Yahoo, Google, and MSN will simply be passed on to us. In effect, its double billing. If they have their way we'll be paying for access to crap content, just like we do with television. Basically, the content provider with the biggest war chest gets the most bandwidth and exposure. And, of course, the party of big business is thoroughly enamoured with the proposition.
It was former FCC chairman Michael Powell, with the support of then-commissioner and current chair Kevin Martin, who permitted phone and cable giants to have greater control over broadband. Powell and his GOP majority eliminated longstanding regulatory safeguards requiring phone companies to operate as nondiscriminatory networks (technically known as "common carriers").
Its just free enterprise, right? Hardly. These companies have used tax dollars to fund this country's communications infrastructure. Who else are you going to get broadband from besides the telephone and cable companies? No one. They have a hardwired system in place that was funded by government dollars and local communities have no choice in local carriers. Given their
efforts to prevent the development of wireless internet access, it sure looks like a monopoly in the making.
Besides their business interests, telephone and cable companies also have a larger political agenda. Both industries oppose giving local communities the right to create their own local Internet wireless or wi-fi networks. They also want to eliminate the last vestige of local oversight from electronic media -- the ability of city or county government, for example, to require telecommunications companies to serve the public interest with, for example, public-access TV channels. The Bells also want to further reduce the ability of the FCC to oversee communications policy. They hope that both the FCC and Congress -- via a new Communications Act -- will back these proposals.
The fight with wi-fi is playing out in every state in the country. The cable and telephone companies intend nothing less than market dominance. And if they achieve that, access to internet content will look like something out of a dystopian novel (
1984,
Brave New World,
Fahrenheit 451, etc...).
But there's a darker possibility ahead if the cable and telco companies succeed in blocking specific "net neutrality" language in the revised Telecommunications Act. A company could conceivably hamper delivery of content that doesn't meet its standards of decency, doesn't share its chairman's political outlook, or doesn't originate from a site owned by its network of media sites. Why would Comcast -- a company that gleans the majority of its revenues selling cable television service to consumers -- want to give those consumers equal access to sites such as YouTube, where a treasure trove of free videos is there for the taking? [Technology Review]
Unfortunately the whole issue is flying under the radar while the Dubai port debacle monopolizes the media lense. If you're a blogger, like me, and you value the internet as a tool for fostering democracy and political participation, you should let your CongressCritter know how important this issue is for all of us. [
Senate,
House of Representatives]
UPDATE: In light of this also consider the ramifications of AT&T's recent bid to acquire Bell South.
AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre backs multi-tiered Internet access, whereby broadband content vendors have to pay for efficient network transport. Translation: He wants Internet service providers to pay for the darn network!
The combination of AT&T and BellSouth would therefore, at least on the face of it, give Whitacre more leverage to get his way, and Internet companies may find their costs rising. [MarketWatch]
See also: [
NY Times Editorial]
Related Topic: [
AOL's Pay-to-Send email system]