OK Go: The Heat is On an Open Internet

For an excellent perspective on net neutrality, read Saturday's New York Times op-ed by OK Go guitarist Damian Kulash.

Kulash, who recently spent time on the Hill with bandmate Andy Ross, explains the central conflict over an open or closed Internet.

"At root there's a pretty simple question," he writes. "How much control should network operators be allowed to have over the information on their lines?"

More than Censorship

OK Go Goes to Washington

Kulash points to recent events where operators have crossed the line into gatekeeping.

In addition to Comcast's assault on file-sharing applications, Verizon has blocked text messages sent by NARAL Pro-Choice America to its members, and AT&T, which has censored Pearl Jam concert Webcasts, is now hatching plans to filter and inspect all Web traffic for perceived copyright infringements.

"When the network operators pull these stunts, there is generally widespread outrage," Kulash writes. "But outright censorship and obstruction of access are only one part of the issue, and they represent the lesser threat, in the long run. What we should worry about more is not what's kept from us today, but what will be built (or not built) in the years to come."

To allow these companies to slowly build a system of gatekeepers into the network is the real and present threat, he writes.

"Exactly," Internet guru David Isenberg said in response to Kulash's comment. "Outright censorship is way too visible for them to get away with. Creeping proactive censorship built into a new infrastructure is a much harder story to tell. And a much bigger danger."

Boiling the Frog

It's analogous to "boiling the frog," according to Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge.

The frog metaphor goes something like this: "If you throw a frog into boiling water, it will jump out. But if you put a frog in warm water, and gradually raise the temperature, it will become acclimated, until it becomes cooked."

Through endless lobbying and their own meddling with the pipes, phone and cable companies have been slowly shifting the way the Internet operates, bringing it into line with their profit plans.

Over time, these incremental shifts in policy and perception amount to radical and harmful changes to an Internet that has fostered free speech, economic innovation and opened governments to public scrutiny.

The Heat is On

We have now arrived at the boiling point for the modern Internet. It's time Americans became more involved with communications policy decisions being made in their name, but not necessarily with their consent.

Congress is considering a bill -- the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" -- and the Federal Communications Commission weighing new rules on network gatekeeping at this very moment. Both of these processes are open to public input.

As Kulash put it today:

The telephone company doesn't get to decide what we discuss over our phone lines. It would be absurd to let the handful of companies who connect us to the Internet determine what we can do online. Congress needs to establish basic ground rules for an open Internet, just as common carriage laws did for the phone system.

Exactly.

Comments

[cdbaker2]

I always read commentaries and stories about Net Neutrality and open internet access because these are two of the more important issues facing our country. With so many people reaching out, using the Internet to finally have a voice and to see beyond their immediate world, an Internet uninhibited by corporate greed and gate keeping is essential. Unless we keep the pressure on our access will more closely resemble that of China than what we've come to know and expect here. Net neutrality is something that upon which we should never compromise.

[zjr909]

Even after the telecoms gut net neutrality (which, given the general apathy of the public, is almost a forgone conclusion), there may still be a sliver of hope left for a free internet. This, because it's a safe bet the telecoms will not censor right wing blogs and propaganda machines. And this, in turn, could give progressive blogs, etc, an opening to bring a lawsuit - or at least make the public aware of the blatant discrimination against progressives and against news in general. Of course, then you end up with the same problem you have now: getting the public to give a damn about anything that requires them to string two or more thoughts together.

[c1ee]

Obama is for net neutrality right? Apparently he's good friends with the chief legal officer at Google. And they talked about this in his Google interview i saw on Youtube. Google are not evil yet, and they are really pushing the net neutrality issue. Gogo Obama, this is really important!

[mouselion]

Interestingly, for as many people who like to frequent the news blogs and exercise their right to free speech, response and enthusiasm always seems lacking for stories about the net neutrality issue. Note: article posted Saturday morning, here it is Sunday night and four responses. Maybe somebody needs to get Britney Spears to testify on the Hill about it.

[jdevienne]

fwiw, that is apparently not true about frogs, see http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp. Humans may be another story.

[aceholiday]

indeed

[philistine]

Keep the heat on, Mr. Karr. It's time we boiled the frogs in the telecommunications lobby instead of letting them boil us.