A Vote for Net Neutrality

Great news this week from the FCC (and I haven't had the chance to say that many times of the last seven years). By a vote of 3-to-2 the Commission has confirmed what many of us have known for sometime -- that it's wrong for Internet providers to discriminate against certain kinds of online traffic. The specific case is about Comcast and their attempt to slow down the traffic of some customers. But the issue at stake -- Net Neutrality -- is much bigger.

Someone commenting on a Matt Stoller post at OpenLeft made this point: "This issue still needs us explaining it to... anyone who will listen." It's a good point, and it's easy for those of us intimately familiar with Net Neutrality to forget that this isn't even on the radar screen for much of the public. But it should be. If the big telecoms (and many Republicans) get their way, the open and free Internet we have all come to take for granted could quickly become not-so-open and not-so-free.

Net Neutrality -- a guiding principle of the Internet since its beginning -- means that content is all treated equally. It means that when I'm reading the New York Times online, my Internet provider lets me download the page the same way I would download, say, the pictures of Harriet Pendelton's surprise 80th birthday party on the website of my town of North Haven, Maine.

But that's not what companies like Comcast and Verizon want. They want the ability to slow down certain kinds of traffic. For example, they might decide that content providers who pay them get full-speed service, while those who don't get relegated to a "slow-lane." So without Net Neutrality, the New York Times might pop up on my screen almost instantly but I might have to wait a while to get to the important stuff (such as Harriet's birthday pictures.)

Think about what this means: small Internet startups might not be able to afford this gatekeeper's fee, and their second-class status could prevent them from competing with companies that have deeper pockets. With Net Neutrality, the level playing field that gave us Google, YouTube and eBay when they were start-ups would suddenly start to tilt in favor of the big, established players.

As president of Common Cause, I joined a coalition of groups ranging from the Christian Coalition to Consumers Union, and we went to Congress with over a million signatures asking that Net Neutrality be made law. Unfortunately Republicans in Congress refused, and without this week's FCC decision, there would have been nothing protecting American consumers from big telecoms who wanted to create a pay-to-play environment.

Two FCC Commissioners in particular -- my friends Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps -- deserve special recognition. As Matt Stoller points out, these two have been fighting the good fight for Net Neutrality and issues like media consolidation. We're lucky to have them at the FCC but all too often they've been blocked by the three Republicans on the Commission.

We need to make Net Neutrality the law. We need to elect a Congress that will make it a priority to keep this important principal intact -- and insure equal and open access to the Internet for all.

Comments

[RightWingMarine]

If I own the ISP why shouldn't I be allowed to charge extra to go to certain sites faster than others? If my customers don't like my plan they can change providers. Other ISPs will advertise that they do not restrict web access or speed to get the very customers that are unhappy with my service.

What purpose does any law serve that limits the freedom of people and business to make their own decisions?

[KHAAANNN]

Tell you what, I'll convince George Soros and Bill Gates to buy up ALL of the ISP's in the country and then make sure that the ONLY web sites you can access are LIBERAL ones.
You can get Huffington Post, TruthDig, and MoveOn.org at 50Mb/sec, but access to FOX NEWS and Drudge Report will be be denied because they didn't PAY enough to make it worth our time.The only females you will be able to see online will be Rosie O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow.
Got your attention yet? That OK with you?
No? Why not? It's our lines, so we get to say what you can see (by your statement.­)
This would be like your Phone Company not allowing you to call Wal*Mart or your local Liquor Store because they wouldn't cough up the protection money to them.
ISP's are NOT like radio stations, they are classified as Common Carriers, and thus CANNOT restrict your access to ANYTHING.

[RightWingMarine]

Is there a prohibition on starting another ISP to compete with the George Soros and Bill Gates empire? Maybe one that could advertise that they don't restrict access to any part of the web? How successful could that ISP become?

[JerseyBob]

PURE GREED

Anti net neutrality is a crude attempt to base costs to the consumer on an artificial setting of a service standard. In fact, ISP providers cooperating on passage of a law that would allow such artificial standards to be set or who are cooperating on efforts to block efforts to hinder opponents of net neutrality are working toward price fixing. To do this the cooperation of more than one big ISP provider is needed. The setting of cost by enabling government legislation or decision making is a money grab.

They are probably working somewhere in to set set universal standards by definition. This as a basis for reference to an nationally recognized (or not) standards making organization's imprimateur. No superior technology here, merely a reference.

Rates for the "premium" (read pay more) service would be differentiated among ISP providers based on a convoluted system of explanations and identifications of fragmented costs. Think of those horrible land line telephone bills you needed to study if you wanted to understand what you were paying for.

The providers know everyone will want the fasted ISP for personal use. The inet needs to be as free as the air we breath-information being that air. Service differentiation based on ISP speed is pure greed; an attempt to create wealth by legislation. It may be interesting to know that increased speed can actually lower the cost of providing existing service. Hand out of my pocket COMCAST!

[mlaiuppa]

We need a veto proof, filibuster proof 60 majority.

No votes for Republicans this Fall!

[KHAAANNN]

This is EXTREMELY important to all people who love freedom of speech and assembly.
The ONLY medium not controlled by big business (yet) is the Internet. It MUST remain that way.
MANY bills are in congress right now to allow the owners of the "roads" (Comcast, AT&T, etc.) to determine your "destination" i.e. which web sites you can visit and by what means (protocols­.)
Imagine you want to find out what the latest news is on McCain and the ONLY web site your ISP ALLOWS you to access is FOX NEWS because they were the highest bidder (Partner) in the news-reading auction your ISP had . No other news/blog/­informatio­n web site will load, because they want to "shape the traffic" to "smooth out the user experience". No more Google, no more Yahoo. No more Huffington Post. Just FOX NEWS. The ISP will claim "I PAID for this DS3 line, so I determine what it is used for" (shades of Ronnie Raygun.) Ignore the fact that you PAY for unfettered access too.
The customer be damned.
This is about CONTROL OF INFORMATION and nothing more. Don't fall for the other arguments. They are all LIES.
Want to see what a world with ISP control of your access will look like?
Look no further than CHINA.

[TerroristManGonnaGetYa]

In a related story, the New England Patriots lobbied for and NFL rule change stating that 60% of the team needs to be over 30 years old.