Left In Lowell

I do not pretend to understand all the technical issues or applications of this latest attack on a fair and free internet by large corporations, but it boils down to this: Comcast- and Verizon-type companies want more money, and they want to charge you, and the websites you want to view, for the privilege of carrying the data.

The Senate is considering whether to limit the ability of high-speed Internet providers to restrict access to their networks. The need for such legislation arises from the determination by the Federal Communications Commission that advanced telecommunications services (”broadband”) were not really telecommunications services, but were instead “information” services. As explained in a previous column, these semantics relieve broadband providers from the obligation to provide equal service to everyone who uses the system. This was called Common Carrier Regulation. Today the debate has been given the catchy term Net Neutrality.
…
For roughly ten years Lawrence Lessig has been warning us of the inevitable problems when telecommunications companies are not prevented from introducing “code” that limits what people can send or receive through the Internet. The challenge created by what Lessig called the architecture of control is no longer merely potential, nor is it a mere bellicose threat.
…
…the CEO of SBC (now AT&T) told a BusinessWeek interviewer, “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!”

But wasn’t the Internet supposed to be the answer to the limits of broadcasting and cable? Wasn’t the Internet supposed to be inherently democratic? Wasn’t the future supposed to be open and free and full of choice? [Emphasis mine.]

I’m sure it’ll start small. You know, Google might come up a little slower than Yahoo! for a Comcast cable broadband customer, because Yahoo! has paid for the privilege. You’re annoyed, but since there’s very little choice for broadband service, plus Verizon or Earthlink also do this, there’s not much you can do.

Then, your favorite online store stops coming up, because they can’t afford the rates. Next, goes any blog that’s not on Blogger, because only Blogger has the money to pay. CNN loads up just great, but has bought some expensive exclusive rights and so MSNBC takes a full 30 seconds per page to view, or doesn’t come up at all.

Why isn’t the media all over this issue? I know most people would be up in arms (including my non-technical but online-shopping mother) to know that their internet service provider might be allowed to choose what sites they can and cannot see or access. But hey, if I were Big Media, I’d be content to let the internet corporations (who often own or are owned by the same people who own the TV and radio stations and newspapers) choke off the life of the internet, which is contributing to the falling ratings of their news organizations anyway, for a quick buck.

This is a crossroads for internet free speech and delivery of such. Are you ready to see this last citizen’s space sold to the highest bidder the way they sold our airwaves?