Everyone Gets a Bonus from Obama's Net Neutrality Plan
Buried deep in President Barack Obama's American Reinvestment and Recovery Act is a line that should bring a smile to your face -- and a scowl to phone and cable industry lobbyists.
It requires that billions of dollars directed to connect more Americans to broadband be spent on services that meet "nondiscrimination and network interconnection obligations."
What this really means is the good guys have won one battle in the fight for an open Internet. According to Obama's plan, government must now require that the $4.7 billion in federal grants for high-speed services be spent the right way: building networks that abide by Net Neutrality.
In other words, this money -- your money -- cannot be used by powerful companies like AT&T and Comcast to implement plans to "manage," filter or re-route you whenever you traverse the Web.
They have been angling to do so since it became clear that people wanted to use the Internet for more than simple email, ecommerce and search.
No Blank Checks
The good news is that this stimulus money isn't going to be a blank check to big phone and cable. It comes with strings attached, requiring that all networks built with our money leave control over the Internet in the hands of the people who use it every day -- people like you and me.
AT&T and Verizon can't use our money to invest in content filtering tools similar to the Deep Packet Inspection software now being used by China and Burma to sift through Web traffic. Comcast and Cox Cable can't block file-sharing software or other popular and legal Web applications. None of them can use taxpayer funds to decide how and when we watch videos, from whom we purchase goods and services, and where we can or cannot go online.
The only bonus being handed out here is Net Neutrality, a benefit for the millions of Americans who rely daily upon the Internet to improve their economic status, better educate their children, connect with friends and family, and participate more fully in our democracy.
A Bid to Undercut Neutrality
But get this: Just as Washington is deciding how to spend your tax dollars on an open Internet, phone and cable company lobbyists are trying to water down the Net Neutrality requirements, and stamp out consumer choice.
They came out into the open during a public meeting Monday in Washington.
"The idea that we should lay additional and unknown regulations on top of the task of the people getting this grant money is, I think, troubling at best," said Jonathan Banks of the U.S. Telecom Association during a meeting at the U.S. Department of Commerce.
James Assey, of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association said that Net Neutrality requirements could create "uncertainty" in the marketplace. Chris Guttman-McCabe, speaking on behalf of the largest wireless carriers, said openness rules take away from the central focus of the stimulus package, which is "creating the most jobs and helping reverse the recession."
The Internet's Bedrock Principle
Such misleading statements are designed to make people think its in everybody's interest to hand over control of the Internet to the same companies that pay the salaries of these three lobbyists.
But what Banks, Assey and Guttman-McCabe failed to note is that Net Neutrality rules have always governed their profitable clients, such as when AT&T agreed to run a neutral network as a condition of its merger with BellSouth in 2007; or in 2008 when the FCC decided to sanction Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer protocols such as BitTorrent.
The only "uncertainty" in this marketplace would result from giving mighty network providers new powers to fiddle with our content. To do so would undercut the level playing field that has always made the Internet a great engine for free speech and commerce.
Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott just delivered 15,000 letters to the administration demanding that this basic freedom -- the right to connect to anyone, anywhere -- remains the bedrock principle of any new networks built with federal funds.
The voices of Internet users are clear and unequivocal on this, Scott told the agencies in charge of distributing the Internet stimulus. If you want to use our billions, we need to know that we're getting online freedom in exchange.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
My previous comment was filtered out, as may be this one - but quick note:
Dutschke is backwards about American telecommunications history. The government has NOT invested in technology, and private companies thus are not trying to get some kind of deal. In fact, AT&T, a private company, built the entire network only to be regulated and broken up by the government. His subsequent logic is quite flawed in this respect.
And in modern times, Verizon took a rather great risk in being the only carrier to invest in the fiber backbone. They in fact want little to do with this government stimulus package from profitability concerns BECAUSE of net neutrality.
As a note, I don't think it is proper to filter comments that make valid points where unsubstantiated enthusiasm goes unaddressed. Stifling debate miseducates your readership - which perhaps makes it easier to write stuff.
The government (meaning the taxpayer) invests heavily into modern internet technologies ("Data super highways"), only to then have corporations like Comcast, AT&T, Quest etc. lobby for privatizing all these taxpayer owned goods for next to nothing. The goal of these companies is to control who is accessible and how fast. All this of course in the name of "freedom". Their demagogic argument is that "regulation" through net neutrality is against the principles of freedom Conclusion: Forcing private interest corporations to keep the internet free, is limiting freedom. WOW!
This would produce the kind of corporate censorship we already have in the so called "mainstream media".
The fact that internet users, who are aware of the issue are involuntarily feeding the companies that act against their own best interest, because in most areas in the US, there is no free market, that would let a customer decide to choose a company that SUPPORTS Net Neutrality.
All these companies that customers basically are forced to be paying their fees to, use that very money to then go ahead and lobby against the customers best interest: against Net Neutrality.
It needs to be assured, that every state offers at least one internet provider that supplies substantial connection speeds and supports net neutrality.
If that isn't happening, it is hard to argue the case for a "free market" in this area of the industry.
The situation with Net Neutrality is a showcase example for the necessity of GOVERN-ment.
I really don't understand how most of these comments relate to net neutrality.
But I am curious about Relectnoone's logic here. Firstly, are you implying that some aspect of the internet is somehow anti-competitive as of right now? Because I think just about everyone online can agree you're flat out wrong about that.
Secondly, your projections of restricted content are way off base in my opinion. You are unnecessarily drawing a doomsday picture from what otherwise can be a healthy aspect of internet development.
Yes we can - Create jobs, that is.
Even a cynic like me is impressed, Is this for real?
I can't help myself. I love this guy.
AMEN ! I wish I could increase and bold the font here !
As a small internet company, Net Neutrality protects my business from the giants who would trample me and leave me with no income so they could line their already bursting pockets.
If either I or my web customers found themselves and their web sites shoved off to the side to make way for the big companies who can afford to pay the "tolls" some ISP's have contemplated, it would spell the end of entrepreneurs on the internet.
Content that could not be seen would vanish. The content on the internet would decrease and the choices we have now would decline. What we would see would be more biased and controlled just as many media outlets are under individual rule.
Public decent and political opinions would find it hard to be heard if they were relegated to the slow, hidden backwoods of the internet, leaving only corporate sanctioned comments easily available.
It would contribute to the dumbing down of America..a
Only a free interenet is a valuable internet..
AMEN ! I wish I could increase and bold the font here !
As a small internet company, Net Neutrality protects my business from the giants who would trample me and leave me with no income so they could line their already bursting pockets.
If either I or my web customers found themselves and their web sites shoved off to the side to make way for the big companies who can afford to pay the "tolls" some ISP's have contemplated, it would spell the end of entrepreneurs on the internet.
Content that could not be seen would vanish. The content on the internet would decrease and the choices we have now would decline. What we would see would be more biased and controlled just as many media outlets are under individual rule.
Public decent and political opinions would find it hard to be heard if they were relegated to the slow, hidden backwoods of the internet, leaving only corporate sanctioned comments easily available.
It would contribute to the dumbing down of America..a
Only a free interenet is a valuable internet..
Awesome win.
Now what happens a coupla years down the road? Everyone demands lightning speed downloads of their favorite content - all while the country's Broadband appetite ballons from 4G apps on the latest iPhone/Blackberry, better resolution HDTV, PS4/PC/XBox 1080 online, and teleconferencing by holograms?
None of that can happen without a huge reinvestment in infrastructure AND network management.
What does this have to do with NetNeutrality? All networks are managed now. Perhaps you confuse the technical aspects of managing routers and infrastructure with controlling what people are permitted to read online.
We don't need a re-investment in many areas because of the boom of the 80's and 90's which, to this day, has left a ton of dark ( unused fiber optics ) laying in the ground now.
If the content is reduced due to loss of neutrality then we won't gain much by better broadband.
It would be an oxymoron to spend more for faster access to less content !
Oh I hope so!!!!
If we consider the Internet the Information Superhighway for public communication and commerce (an archaic term now but the analogy is still perfect) then would we consider paying a sliding scale toll amount for access to the fast lanes on every public street or highway? Would we then restrict movement of those unable to afford it? Hmmm. Perhaps the carriers should be nationalized?
The technology currently available allows factorial increases in long haul bandwidth with very little increase in cost to the carrier. If the taxpayers are footing the bill for the infrastructure, we must fight every attempt by carriers to restrict access. Once again, we see greed in action as the board room plans to increase dividends with no consideration of the taxpayers' investment (even before the stimulus).
Amen to that!
Im just waiting for them to do something about the monopoly these cable and phone companies have. I live in North Carolina and I cant stand Time Warner and I hate Embarq but those are my only options
I hear you. I'm in Wisconsin, and dislike Charter (our only cable option). To make a stand, I've made the conversion to OTA DTV broadcasts and used our $40 coupons. No more cable company. Two antennae in the attic (1 for Milwaukee, 1 for Madison) and a distribution amplifier downstairs has us covered. The conversion paid for itself in less than 3 months. The video quality is amazing too. I've learned to live without Mythbusters and Timewarp. My wife is still happy since our favorite shows are covered on the big networks.
Deploying cable and broadband into homes costs money. I would love more options but the fact is that the more companies try to serve a given area, the fewer customers each will have in that area and the higher the cost to service each becomes. Comcast can afford to install many miles of cable in exclusive contract areas because they get all the customers to pay for it. If three more companies tried to enter the same area and each got an equal share of the market, each now has the same amount of cable and infrastructure and royalty payments for content but only 1/4 of that market each to pay for the over head.
What we need is to pipe one fiber to every house in America ( will take time ) and then let the families and businesses order services over the same fiber from any source they choose. Cable companies, phone companies, ISP's etc. could just share the same infrastructure with each paying according to their use.
Only the physical network would be under one point management and that could be a quasi-government agency not unlike the Post Office.
Releived of the cost of distribution, providers can concentrate on content instead and more could compete.
I don't even know why this is a story. The bill says what they can and can not spend the governement's money on, not their own money.
Read that again. And think about it.
Currently these companies are spending money to improve their networks AND control the data. So when they take the money, they just spend it on infrastructure improvements like burying fiber all over the place. The government money displaces the money they were going to spend on this themselves. As long as they don't spend government money on their data centers, they can do whatever they want there.
So AT&T spends a ton of your tax dollars on big open fiber pipes. But unfortunately, that freed up a lot of their own money to spend locking up their data centers that all that fiber has to connect to. They are only arguing in congress for your benefit, and maybe there is a small chance their lobyists will succeed, but behind closed doors, they are laughing right out of their chairs. They can either use their spare money to lock the net down tighter than ever, or dump it straight in to profit. Either way, they win.
What I don't get is what the hell happened to innovation of products and services in this country? It seems to me that the ONLY innovation going on anymore is in figuring out ways to cheat us out of what we are due like with insurance, or restricting our use of services we pay for like the internet. Why the hell should I pay $60.00 a month to connect to my email and do light browsing when it was our tax money that CREATED the internet in the first place? Why is broadband in Japan up to 30 times faster than here in the US?
America - the leaders in making you pay more for less.
Kind of a shame they pissed away a half trillion dollar giveaway last decade, innit.
Keep in mind Japan's population density. NTT doesn't have to serve many rural farmhouses.
Because we are in late stage capitalism, with more large corporate entities and fewer independent shops. The large corporations have the power to crush most new ideas, either with marketing blitzes to flood the market or by purchasing legislation restricting their competitors.
The irony is, this is good for short term profits but over time cripples the company, sometimes fatally.
More grounds for cautious optimism! I'm almost ready to smile!
If I'm not careful, I too might feel hopeful.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
