I just read one of the best articles I've seen on net neutrality. It was originally published on May 17 in
The Independent Weekly in North Carolina, but was recently updated and ran in Portland's alternative weekly,
Willamette Week. It very cogently lays out the background of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as well as the current House and Senate bills that would reauthorize it, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act and the Communications, Consumers' Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006, respectively.
It also clearly explains what is at stake for net neutrality:
Both bills cover a lot of ground. They would overturn state laws that prevent cities from setting up their own community Internet services, which is good. . . . They would establish a national video franchise system to allow telephone and cable companies to offer broadband TV service without having to make the local agreements the cable companies currently have; thanks to public outcry, the bills also ensure funding for public-access programming, though many would say it's not nearly enough.
Of most concern is the appearance that Congress will let telephone and cable companies charge different rates to different content providers. To preserve the Internet itself, Congress needs to make a clear stand during this deregulation against letting Internet service providers filter content--30 years of protocols and global standards demonstrate that the Internet by its very nature is neutral in how information has moved from one computer to another.
Net-neutrality legislation would ensure that every Web-based business and every site, be it personal, political or commercial, would be treated the same by the systems that power the networks. If those networks cease to be open, consistent and predictable, if they begin to interfere with the content that passes through their pipes, we'll still have broadband networks, but the Internet as we know it will be history.
...
Here's the danger of life without net neutrality: Currently, an Internet service provider, or ISP, charges the companies whose sites it hosts, be they Google or Willamette Week, the same amount of money per byte that's transmitted. What Verizon, Qwest, BellSouth, Time Warner, SBC, Comcast and AT&T--the main supporters of the new telecom legislation and opponents of net neutrality--want is to charge content providers more for higher levels of service.
A news content site like The New York Times could sign a high-dollar agreement with an ISP for that fast service, making its competitors less appealing to the 80 percent of Americans who get their news online. How slow will rank-and-file websites be in that system? How easy will it be to read the liberal blogs or download the indie podcasts? That would be up to the ISPs.
The article also lays out just who is involved in the fight:
As you might expect, opponents of net neutrality are pumping money into Congress. A recent report by the Center for Public Integrity noted that, while both sides of the debate contribute significant amounts of money to federal campaigns, the telcos spend more than three times the amount that Internet companies do--$9.1 million from the PACs, lobbyists and employees of cable and phone companies like Verizon and Comcast, compared with $2.7 million from those of Internet companies like Google and Amazon. While these are the main players atop the pyramid, groups like the Christian Coalition and MoveOn add some money to the fight--as do media content companies with ties to ISPs, such as Time Warner. The interested parties are legion.
Industry money is also funding a heavy-duty advertising and PR blitz, some of which is conducted by "Astroturf" (phony grassroots) organizations such as Hands Off the Internet ("Say no to government regulation of the Internet") and FreedomWorks ("Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom"), which are funded by the telecom companies. Their spin: The market will sort things out--if customers don't like the tiered service, they can pick another provider; Internet service providers have no plans to block content, so there's no problem; even if they did, the FCC already has the jurisdiction to punish them for it, so why get government any more involved? [Emphasis added.]
The problem with that line of argument is that both versions of the legislation would prevent the FCC from writing and enforcing any new regulations. The FCC's hands would be tied--they'd have the jurisdiction, but no new rules regarding net neutrality to enforce.
The legislation is still stalled in the Senate. Wyden's hold is still in place, as is his threat to filibuster the legislation should Stevens try to take it to the floor. But in the meantime, the telcos are still hard at work, trying to influence individual Senators. Which is what we need to be doing, too. If you haven't called or written your Senator on this issue yet, please do. How critical is it? I leave the last word to Senator Wyden:
"Without a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet and without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate, the Internet will be forever changed for the worse," he said. "Those who own the pipes, the giant cable and phone companies, want to discriminate in which sites you can access. If they get their way, not only will you have to pay more for faster speeds, you'll have to pay more for something you get free today: unfettered access to every site on the World Wide Web. To me, that's discrimination."