Net Neutrality Paper

From digmovements

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Our Internet: A Look at Net Neutrality in American


On June 28th, 2006, United States Senator Ted Stevens said,


“The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand 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, enormous amounts of material.” [1]


This comment was in response to a proposed amendment to a committee bill that was supposed prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from offering tiered access to customers. This comment started a firestorm of attacks target at those who wanted to remove net neutrality from the internet. Was the fate of the internet left in the hands of an 82 year old man who thought its infrastructure was similar to a series of tubes? A man who thought most people were mistaking the internet for a truck you can dump stuff on? Stevens' words had become an internet sensation. They became ingrained into internet popculture. Stevens was the perfect symbol of the old grandfather who thinks he knows everything but his age is finally catching up to him. Bloggers jumped on, responding with funny, but educated comments showing their understanding of the issue.

“...The excitement of the Internet isn’t that it’s a niftier TV. In part, it’s that “consumers” get to choose among tens of millions of media voices, in whatever combination they want. Even better, “consumers” can use the internet to create, refine, and post content, even high-bandwidth content, for next to nothing.” [2]

Eventually after the blogs tore Stevens apart the issue had made it way onto the Daily Show.

The point of this is in part to show the power of the internet. It has the ability to spread information and create dialogue about a topic that would of never been picked up by the MSM. Everyone had equal access to Stevens' comments. That is a fundamental component to net neutrality. On the other hand it shows the complete misunderstanding (or simply no understanding) of the issue at hand. People who are in the position to decide the fate of net neutrality many times do not have any internet literacy beyond sending email. If they are unable to understand, they need to know that those who are frequently using the internet want to protect net neutrality. Net Neutrality is crucial to maintaining the innovative and free nature of the internet and the only way to preserve this is through the establishment and advancement of activism both in both the cyber and physical realm. I will first offer a brief history of the Internet and the establishment of its physical infrastructure, explain net neutrality and its importance, then address the activism involved in maintaining net neutrality.

[edit] The Consumer's Dilemma


“Net neutrality is bollocks” - Neil Berkett, Virgin CEO

We are writing to you today to cancel our Virgin Broadband account, having read the remarks of your new CEO, Neil Berkett, in which he described the idea of Net Neutrality as "bollocks," promising that any Internet service that failed to pay off Virgin to deliver its packets would be put into the "Internet bus lane." [3]

The internet was originally set up as a defense technology created by DARPA in 1958. One of many innovations that is a by-product of the Cold War.[4] A network that was to link up radars across the US. Not until 1991 did the public see the World Wide Web, created by British scientist Tim Berners-Lee in 1989. But a real problem story is underneath this. It is buried underground, beneath our feet: the physical wires and cords that make up the Web. Telecommunication companies are responsible for laying down the majority of the wire within the US. The concept of the “last mile” or “first mile” (depending on which direction you look at it) has become an issue. The telecom control on the last-mile has left customers out of the equation. Creating a system where content and the speed of that content can be directly controlled by the owners (not the operators) of the wire in use. It has become a dilemma. Who has the rights? Who controls the content? Who gets to make the decision? These are questions that are in continual debate and right now we have no answers.
The biggest question is “what is net neutrality?”. Different groups have said different things. But the reoccurring theme we see time and time again is the issue of control. Who holds the reigns of the internet? Is it the consumer or the ISP? Google has been a powerful voice in favor of net neutrality and has defined it themselves saying,

“...Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet.” [5]

You will encounter many definitions but the main ideas are:

  • Protection – in many forms. The protection of what you can view and the not worry that information is being sold or given away or you are being price gouged due to local monopolies.
  • Access – The ability to access any site, anytime you want. Without having to pay extra to view specific content or deal with the issue of tiered access.
  • No Data Discrimination – Certain content will not be altered or unable to be reached as result of ISP blockage.



With people having limited choices in their internet access due to cable or phone monopolies, all these ideas are in the process of being phased out of standard access. Protection from price gouging at the hands of corporations like Comcast is now becoming necessary . With the internet becoming so widespread in the United States and other industrialized countries, we are now witnessing the effects of the explosion. Countries like Sweden or France have government controlled infrastructure and generally pay less and receive faster upload speeds than most American users. The lack of control of the wires is causing great harm to us. The fact that prices are so high are in many ways limits all users access. It is true that you can get dialup internet for free, but this requires a phone line. Also, the web is now setup with assumption the user has a broadband connection. Not allowing someone to have highspeed internet is cutting them off from so much content that is audio or video based. With the biggest news stories now appearing on Youtube before CNN or even CNN.com, it leaves them one step behind everyone else. Being a not-so-wealthy college student, I have run into this problem. Not being able to afford high-speed internet by itself. The only way to get it at less than 40 dollars was to package with basic cable and land line. This utter lack of competition has left Americans unprotected from these practices. One users on a popular torrent blog had this to say about his local internet choices,

“As customers, all we ask is to get what we pay for. Unfortunately, increasingly, ISPs reserve the right to throttle certain kinds of traffic in their “Terms of Service” agreements. One would hope that competition would come to the rescue, but countries like the US, through the FCC, tend to favor having only one or two providers in most markets with the resulting monopolistic consequences. My own experience is with Qwest, the major and only real competitor in my local market to Comcast.”[6]

One of the biggest worries that comes with the destruction of net neutrality is the idea of ISPs offering tiered internet. We have seen tiered access happen in the past with other forms of media. One that particularly stands out is the amounts of channels you received based on your cable or satellite subscription. Yet, that is still extremely different. Those channels you are paying extra for are owned by mass media corporation like Viacom or News Corp. They own the content. Telecoms could close the door to many of the user created blogs on the internet where the content is still created and owned by the user. It is true that the website the content is hosted is on a server owned by a large corporation (both Youtube and Blogger are owned by Google), but still the content is not directly controlled and expresses opinion of the sites owner. Other fears of only being able to only use one search engine over another, not because of superiority or ease of use, but because ISP throttle traffic to “non-preffered sites, leaving the customer forced to seek the “preferred” alternative. Multiple conflicts of interests would arise. Even worries of ISPs actually owning and buying websites and directing traffic against the users will towards those sites. These actions are not fair and undemocratic. They are fundamentally against the principles the WWW was born with. On the internet all users with access are at the same level and have the same opportunities. The fear that only the privileged can be bloggers or video-posters could be a result of tiered access.

Data Discrimination is similar to tiered access in many ways. They both deal with the fear of users losing access to content. But data discrimination directly deals with when ISP decides whether the should be allowed to be viewed. Not just by certain privileged users by all users. It could also be called Data Censorship. A great example of this is when users of the popular peer-to-peer (P2P) application Bit Torrent started noticing slow downs or complete stalls in their downloads and uploads from and to other other users. Comcast had been using a technique now called “traffic shaping”. They decided what traffic was unnecessary and cut of these connections saying they were leeching bandwidth from other cable users. This has sent the filesharing community up in arms. One users on a popular torrent news site/blog left this comment on a story about Comcast's cutting of torrent seeders.

“Comcast wants you to quit: If they only have low-usage users who are overpaying for their connections, they win. Most of you are the techies who know lots of other folks. Instead of leaving Comcast, help your parents, friends, etc upgrade to someone who provides Internet service as opposed to limited IP connectivity.”[7]

There are different sorts of stories all involving data discrimination, sometimes because of fears of the content simply being to censored because th ISP feels it may be offensive. In 2007, Version Wireless decided that text messages sent by an abortion rights group to customers, who had signed up to received them, were “unsavory” and decided not have the messages sent through.[8] While this does not directly relate to the internet, it does show where telecommunication companies have clearly their bounds and entered the realm of censorship. It is a breach of net neutrality (in this case, a wireless phone network).

[edit] The Activist's Stand


“I create video content for two different community access media stations. Occasionally, I have the opportunity to share some of my creations on the internet with my peers. And I take great pleasure in seeing some of the creative endeavors of my peers also on the internet. Net Neutrality is essential to free speech. Without it we would have no other avenue for this form of self expression. Diversity of opinion is essential to our democracy. Do NOT block this avenue! This fundamental change would end the open Internet as we know it. It would damage my ability to connect with others, share information and participate in our 21st century democracy and economy. The FCC must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination.”

Anonymous, From Washington's 3rd Congressional Disctrict (from Savetheinternet.com)

With the idea of net neutrality being attacked, internet users have taken a stand to stop this process and unite to fight for their electronic rights. Bloggers have been blogging about, Diggers have been digging the articles, internet lovers have been sending email and making phone calls to their representatives. Much of the force that wants to protect net neutrality is centered around the Savetheinternet.com coalition, which I would like to specifically talk about because it is the most active and most powerful pro-net neutrality group in cyberspace.

The SaveTheInternet Coalition is mostly made up of NGOs, bloggers, individuals, and businesses. Some of the individuals that make up the coalition are people like Tim Wu, Lawerence Lessig, and Craig Newmark. Both Wu and Lessig are the foremost faces in the net neutrality battle because of their deep understanding of both the technical and commercial effects. And of course, Craig Newmark is the creator of Craigslist.com. NGOs like the ACLU, Gun Owners of America, The Christian Coalition, Moveon.org, and even the Teamsters are all supporting members in the coalition. This shows its wide appeal and many civil liberties groups understand the importance of our freedoms both on and off-line. With high profiles celebrities and musicians, like Jeff Tweedy of Wilco, advocating the cause, word manage to catch on about StI's campaign.

What StI manages to do so well is make a website that gives the viewer comprehension of exactly what net neutrality stands for and how they can do something. As you enter the site you see stories of other everyday people who have stood up to protect net neutrality, creating that feeling of empowerment. The front page also has news feeds showing exactly what is going on right now with net neutrality. You can even see the effects of net neutrality at a local level by being able to look at specific stories from people in your congressional disctrict.

SaveTheInternet's greatest power is its ability to allow the user to take action directly. On the top navigation bar is a giant red button that exclaims, “ACT NOW”. When clicked it gives you a 5 step list of actions you can take right now.

  1. Sign the petition and send a message to Congress
  2. Call your members of Congress
  3. Support the SavetheInternet.com Ad Fund
  4. Promote SavetheInternet on your blog or site
  5. Tell five friends to join the fight for internet freedom



The first option brings up a simple form that sends you representative a pre-made message urging him/her to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (HR5353). HR5353 does not go into technical jargon but just makes sure net neutrality will be part of the internet for the foreseeable future. The first lines of the bill read,

“To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes.” [9]
This is an action that directly uses the internet but intends to create action that will be carried out beyond cyberspace. While step two ask the user to try another media in attempt to lobby their representatives. Step three is visible in almost any legal campaign. The need for funding to support campaign is always an issue. Adapting to internet capabilities, it only offers online credit card transactions. The fourth step is so crucial the StI campaign. A word of mouth campaign is the driving force behind the coalition. I typed net neutrality into Google's blog search and came up with 1,203,301 hits. I tried the exact same search five minutes later and had 1,203,495 hits. With every news story being reposted blog after blog we tend to see a redundancy in information but this comes with an increase in awareness. This increase of awareness has created a base for the defenders of net neutrality. Any new important information, breakthrough, or degradation can be seen within hours via majors blogs (even the Huffington Post is now covering net neutrality)[10] and popular social sites like digg.com. This is arguable the most powerful step an activist can take to furthering the preservation of net neutrality.

While the presence of net neutrality activism is apparent on the web, it is rarely seen outside of it. The next step is to take these voices directly to state and our national capital to demand that net neutrality is essential to democracy. Recently, Canadians have scheduled a rally to take place on May 27th. But how successful will it be? Does the net neutrality campaign have enough importance outside the internet to actually draw a large amount of protesters? The results of this event will be unfolded within the next few days and we will be able to make a first judgment. If turnout is poor or uninspired it could strike a hard blow to the net neutrality campaign and would dishearten Americans who witnessed the lackluster turnout. Yet, there have been great gains in awareness within a online-only campaign. Many questions will be answered within the next few days about the campaign's real world legitimacy.

[edit] In Conclusion



“What we're ultimately asking is a question that Adam Smith struggled with. Is there something special about "carriers" and infrastructure—roads, canals, electric grids, trains, the Internet—that mandates special treatment? Since about the 17th century, there's been a strong sense that basic transport networks should serve the public interest without discrimination. This might be because so much depends on them: They catalyze entire industries, meaning that gratuitous discrimination can have ripple effects across the nation. By this logic, so long as you think the Internet is more like a highway than a fried-chicken outlet, it should be neutral in what it carries.”- Tim Wu [11]

Net neutrality has offered us an internet that has changed our lives. We now depend on the internet for our news, communication, work etc. Whether this is good or bad is a separate debate. I have no problem saying I am happy with the internet and all its given me. Essentially what it has given me is everyone else's ideas, but I chose who's I want, not my ISP. I am now a blogger and anyone has the ability to read what I write without paying more. I am now a critic and anyone has the ability to openly engage in debate with me. These are things we take for granted, well, because they are granted. We have to worry about the protection of the principles that have given us the internet that we all explore and contribute to today. Blog it, digg it, post it, debate it, even parody it, it doesn't matter. As long as the message is being sent and understood the protection increases, you are saving the internet.


[edit] References

  1. ↑ Wired Blog, Your Own Personal Internet, http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2006/06/your_own_person.html, June 30, 2006.
  2. ↑ Bill Herman, Senator Stevens Just, http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/497, June 28th, 2006.
  3. ↑ Cory Doctorow, Dear Virgin Media: if Net Neutrality is "bollocks" then you can get stuffed,http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/07/dear-virgin-media-if.html, May 7th, 2008.
  4. ↑ DARPA Over The Years, http://www.darpa.mil/body/overtheyears.html, October 27th , 2008.
  5. ↑ Google, A Guide To Net Neutrality, http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html, 2008.
  6. ↑ Ernesto, Comcast Throttles Bit Torrent Traffic, Seeding Impossible, http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/, August 17th, 2008.
  7. ↑ Dan, Article Comment, http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-148316, August 17th, 2007.
  8. ↑ Adam Liptak, Verizon Rejects Text Messages From an Abortion Rights Group, New York Times, (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4D7133EF934A1575AC0A9619C8B63), September 27th, 2007.
  9. ↑ Internet Freedom Preservation Act, HR5353, 2008
  10. ↑ Art Brodsky, Why The 'Right' Gets Net Neutrality Wrong, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/why-the-right-gets-net-ne_b_100135.html), May 5th, 2008.
  11. ↑ Tim Wu, Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality, Slate.com, http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/, May 1st, 2008



Retrieved from "http://www2.evergreen.edu/wikis/digmovements/index.php?title=Net_Neutrality_Paper"