Arianna Huffington in her post last May, "Net Neutrality": Why are the Bad Guys So Much Better at Naming Things? notes a very important concept behind media agenda setting, the use of special words to distort and skew meaning. She called for suggestions to replace this two word phrase. I have to say that Internet Freedom is most accurate. As important as the internet has become in this information age, any control over it is clearly a power play and an imposition on our very freedom.
By using technological terms like Net Neutrality or Whitespace Spectrum, we immediately lose half the audience whose thoughts gloss over. So it becomes important to explain the meaning of these terms over and over until it sinks in, and until people realize we are talking about a very basic freedom here; just as when we hear the term collateral damage, we know we're talking about deliberate legalized mass murder.
So what are Whitespace and Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is a term used to describe the intended usage of the internet, or network ISPs as neutral. In other words, it means that the internet should be equally available to all people. The reason this is an issue is because the ISPs have stated their intentions to prioritize internet access and performance for paying customers. Big companies, like Fox News, for example, could have better performing and better accessible websites than say NPR or independents, even individuals, who can't afford premium internet broadcasting websites.
Whitespace, according to CNet News:
Most broadcast channels are separated by small swaths of Spectrum, or unused channels called white space, which limit interference from other stations. Technology companies and consumer advocates believe the use of this unlicensed Spectrum could open up a wireless broadband pipe into the home, providing a competitor to cable and DSL services.
Congress has mandated the airwaves in the 700MHz band be vacated in February 2009, forcing analog TV broadcasters off those channels as part of the long-anticipated switch to all-digital television. Current and would-be wireless broadband operators are eager to get their hands on the Spectrum because of its inherent physical properties, which allow signals to travel farther and more easily penetrate walls.
On their own, these slivers of wireless Spectrum are not sufficient to provide enough capacity for companies to build wireless broadband services that truly compete against high-bandwidth services offered by the cable and phone companies. But combined with other pieces of Spectrum, like Wi-Fi, this Spectrum could provide enough capacity to deliver competitive services.
With the advent of this new policy, the old TV airwaves and Whitespace will become available. The issues over Whitespace are related to auctioning or licensing network airways, such as the wireless networks that are currently unlicensed.
McCain wants to control the Whitespace Spectrum and auction it at a premium. Obama wants it to be unlicensed. McCain is historically repeatedly against network neutrality. Obama is strongly aggressively for it.
Here's a what-if scenario. Imagine having to pay for a license from your ISP (Internet Service Providers, like Time-Warner Cable, Comcast, or ATT Yahoo Broadband) to put up your own wireless network. What's next? Licensed garage door remotes? Is this even an issue? The answer is not yet clear. Is that far fetched? A conspiracy theory? Well, if there is no regulation, what's to stop ISPs from doing this?
Here's an Obama quote:
"It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes. Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes."
Clearly McCain is complacent to the issues of Internet Freedom:
John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices. John McCain has always believed the government's role must be rooted in protecting consumers.
Internet Freedom has taken a back seat to other election issues. Though, not for everyone. There are a number of people, organizations, and companies that are very concerned about these issues, and especially concerned about the choice of our next president, considering that McCain and Obama are in direct opposition on these issues.
One special group of people very concerned about Internet Freedom are independent filmmakers. The issue was mentioned at a recent Los Angeles Filmmaker Forum on independent film financing and distribution. In the current economic climate, ever since the January 2007 Sundance Film Festival when a sudden downturn in the indie film market saw few films being bought, film financing was harder to come by, especially for indie filmmakers who typically look for investors for projects budgeted under ten million dollars. That would include some of the great breakout filmmakers like director, Kevin Smith, who made Clerks for $27,000, on a credit card, and the Blair Witch Project, Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez who spent just $60,000.
Now these guys would be harder pressed to find distributors willing to spend the additional money to market their films. The tide has turned toward the big hundred million dollar plus (tent pole) studio films, which the traditional industry feels are better investments. They aren't always. But that's another discussion. Anyway, distribution is often a big part of the total financing, and with distribution models changing, Net Neutrality is an issue.
Indie filmmakers are concerned because the internet is becoming their new distribution venue. The future also holds unknown forms of distribution in store for them, like streaming broadcasts, downloads, and other yet to be invented forms. This was also a major issue during the recent writer's strike. If the internet is controlled by big business, it will shut out the independents and squelch their voices. The popular YouTube films, for example, might not include those crazy guys and their cute films, if they can't afford the premiums; or even entire websites like DeclareYourself.com (and their video below), that have no big studio affiliation but do have a mission basic to our free society. But worse, there are many indie film websites like b-side, Funny or Die, IFC Media Lab, the Sundance Film Festival and many others that hold online contests and streaming. It is expected with evolving technology that feature films will also become readily available for streaming or download. This could be a very real alternative to Blockbuster, Netflix, and the traditional Cineplex (theatrical release tier), in which distribution typically costs millions of dollars, if not tens of millions. But what if it is control by the big Hollywood studios? This new media neutrality is in jeopardy.
What does this mean to you? Without Internet Freedom it may become very hard or impossible for you to find the films and entertainment you like, instead of being stuck with what the big studios and networks want you to see.
As Hollywood producer, Ted Hope, stated in his keynote address at the Filmmaker Forum:
So what is this TRULY FREE FILM CULTURE I am proposing? It is one that utilizes first and foremost the remarkable tool that is The Internet. It is the internet that transforms the culture business from a business that is based around limited supply and the rule of gatekeepers to a business that around the fulfillment of all audience desire, and not just the desire of mass audiences, but also of the niches.
We have never had this sort opportunity before and the great tragedy is that just as we are learning what it means, forces are vying to take it away from us. The principal that all information, all creators, all audiences should be treated equally within the structure that is the internet is popularly referred to as Net Neutrality. The Telecos, the Cable Companies, and their great ally, the Hollywood Motion Picture Studios and the MPAA are now trying to end that equality. And with it you will lose the opportunity to be TRULY FREE FILMMAKERS. But they are not going to succeed because we are going to ban together and organize, we are going to save the internet, and keep equal access for all.
Meanwhile the U.S. has fallen to a position of 15th in the world in certain internet access measures like broadband penetration, according to the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 80% of Japan's population can get fiber optic broadband at speeds 20 to 50 times what Americans get, says Rob Atkinson, founder and president of the ITIF (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation), a Washington non-partisan technology think tank.
Atkinson discusses McCain's and Obama's views on New York's WNYC NPR radio program, The Brian Lehrer Show: Issue 5: Will Government Mess up the Internet (listen to or download the program while you still can). He said Obama wants to "ensure free and open exchange of information" and will "take a back seat to no one" in his work on network neutrality. McCain says Net Neutrality is something we have to look at from time to time, and something he hasn't taken "a firm answer on..." The candidates responses were played on the program; and the issues were then debated by well qualified scholars, Frank Pasquale, professor of law at Seton Hall and Daniel Ballon, Policy Fellow in Technology at the Pacific Research Institute.
The ITIF posts a comprehensive web document called, Comparing the Candidates Technology and Innovation Polices, which compares numerous technology issues, including Whitespace Spectrum and Net Neutrality.
McCain's position looks like double talk. He opposes Internet Freedom (Net Neutrality) yet supports some basic FCC voluntary policies. Even the phrase voluntary policies is self contradicting. On the other hand, Obama wants legislation to nail down protections.
Certainly, Japan's success is a model to look to. Atkinson mentioned that Japan's government intervenes to ensure universality and competition. He sited an incident in the U.S. where Comcast had shut down access to a website and then denied doing so. Those who oppose Internet Freedom say there are a lot of red herrings thrown around about how big companies could block or take control of the internet.
One of the problems is that some providers have limited bandwidth for a lot of users and may have to resort to shutting down high bandwidth sites as Comcast did. No one denies that Comcast did this. Pro Internet Freedom advocates say recent court decisions have limited the effectiveness of antitrust laws to regulate monopolistic or dual monopolistic practices.
Once again the issue comes down to conservatives looking to allow corporate monopolies take control with the excuse of keeping government regulation out of it. But our internet freedom is too precious to trust to a few monopolistic ISPs.
In any case, this is an important issue and one that could seriously inhibit the freedoms we now enjoy and take for granted. Freedoms like easily being able to watch videos like this one.