Opponents of the open Internet like to portray its guiding rule, Net Neutrality, as "a government takeover of the Internet."
They argue that from the day of its inception the Internet has existed free of regulation -- a perfect expression of the marketplace at work.
What they don't understand is that the Internet is a far better expression of democracy, and as such needs rules like Net Neutrality to ensure all users have equal access to online content.
And in reality the Internet as we now know it would never have existed were it not for rules and regulation, beginning with the openness standards created by the Internet's founders some 40 years ago, codified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and updated in recent orders by the Federal Communications Commission.
Internet users often take these rules for granted. We expect to access all websites without interference. We can visit our nephew's blog as easily as we can CNN.com.
But our ability to connect doesn't happen in a vacuum; Net Neutrality protections are responsible for making these freedoms common to everyone.
This could change, however, if corporate Republicans get their way in the Senate this week. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas is planning a Thursday vote on a "resolution of disapproval" that would void the FCC's 2010 Open Internet order and strip the agency of any authority to stop corporations from taking control of the Internet from users.
Washington Doublespeak
Sen. Hutchison, who has AT&T's corporate headquarters in her back yard, has long carried water in Washington for the phone and cable lobby. Her resolution couldn't come at a worse time for Internet users. These companies are pushing plans to prioritize certain kinds of online and mobile traffic while downgrading the sites, applications and services that the rest of us may want to use.
But when speaking last week about the resolution, Sen. Hutchison got it backwards. The Internet "has created new products, new services, because it is open, because there hasn't been a gatekeeper," she said, adding that she introduced the Senate resolution because it's good for Internet users like you and me.
Come again? Sen. Hutchinson seeks to keep the Internet's gatekeepers at bay by forcing through a measure that would allow companies like AT&T and Comcast to block traffic without consequences.
The hypocrisy is as thick in the House, where resolution proponent Rep. Marsha Blackburn recently said the Open Internet rules are akin to the FCC "building an Internet Iron Curtain that will restrict more of our freedom."
Did you get that? According to Rep. Blackburn supporters of the open Internet are Soviet-styled Communists, hell-bent on walling off the Web and silencing your voice.
Such is the doublespeak that emanates from Washington these days. If senators pass this week's resolution, their digital ignorance will become a problem for the rest of us, which is why Internet users need to protest the resolution with full force.
The Internet Wrecking Ball
The phone and cable companies behind this scheme have long sought to take a wrecking ball to the Web's democratic foundation. In their thinking they need to destroy the Internet to rebuild it to better serve their bottom lines. The needs of the rest of us are just an afterthought.
And concerns about blocking are not limited to access to websites, and they are not hypothetical. In 2007 Comcast was caught red-handed blocking people seeking to share files using the popular BitTorrent platform. That same year, Verizon Wireless rejected NARAL Pro-Choice America's request to send text messages over its network, claiming them to be "unsavory" and "controversial." While Verizon soon reversed this decision, its attorneys still assert the company's right to block text messages at will.
Today, mobile carrier MetroPCS is touting a plan that bans all other video services on mobile devices in favor of YouTube. Other carriers are lining up payment schemes that will conceal whole sections of the Internet behind paywalls.
As more people use the Internet for all things media, Internet providers have massive financial incentives to make sites and services pay a premium to reach their users, and to make their users pay extra to experience the entire Internet. And with most Americans having two or fewer options for broadband in their respective markets, there's not enough competition to hold these companies in check.
Congress should not pass a resolution that lets a few wealthy corporations get away with hijacking our online rights. The open Internet is far too important to the rest of us.
Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr
Perhaps the widespread availability of knowledge, educational persuit and opinion is intimidating? I can understand censoring to a point, child porn, abusive or deliberately provoking comments, completely erronous information, etc, but limiting what in effect, is akin to the newspaper, albeit the largest newspaper in the world, is way beyond those boundaries. I would think that such censorship should be at the discretion of the publishers, editors and monitors, not politicians or companies that strive to monopolize. I know that in some countries access is limited, but that is due to technology not being available yet, but if one has the means it IS available.
If something like this comes to fruition they may as well burn the constitution as it's purpose in regard to individual's rights will become moot. Is this debate's intention is to create tension between opposing parties or is it simply to generate more revenue? If so, it will surely ignite either fire. Now my opinions and affiliations, (even if they may be unknown even to me at times), undecided, misconstrued or misinterpreted by whomever has that power will determine I am not worthy?
Perhaps there is some kind malaise affecting the brains of those that we send to the Senate, as along with what I read in this blog, there is a movement afoot to allow States the collection of cross traffic sales taxes on internet purchases. I guess our dear Senators are not aware that there is an economic situation in which there is a slight degree of job shortages and this move will only create more. That must have their heads in a dark place. Such a move would close many small start ups to close and the larger operators to charge more as both would straddled with large bookkeeping costs required for compliance. This in turn would cut profits at Fedex, UPS and probably put the post office into insolvency.
One has to wonder why we give Senators a 6 year term and Contgress only 2?
BUT Marsha Blackburn did Vote FOR: Patriot Act Reauthorization, Electronic Surveillance, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening, Patriot Act extension; and only NOW she is worried about free speech, privacy, and government take over of the internet?
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her “blatantly unconstitutional” votes at :
http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/tn-congressman-marsha-blackburn-votes.html
Mickey
Just as a reminder of this agencies history, George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC4DHGBo01Q
And the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was also intended to prevent the takeover of radio. Since then, the industry has only been further consolidated. http://www.stopbigmedia.com/files/radio_ownership.pdf
That is what happens when you ignore the law of unintended consequences. How about we don't let the same thing happen to the internet.
If your prediction were accurate, it would already have happened, and would have done so before 2005. Until Aug of that year, the FCC had regulatory authority over service providers under Title II classification. The limits of the newly-reduced authority under Title I were tested in the Comcast case, which was only ruled on last year, and after which Chmn Genachowski issued a notice of intent to restore Title II classification. In an attempt to head this off, providers entered into a series of negotiations with the agency which resulted in the agreement the Hutchison resolution would overturn.
During this period, providers have, for the most part, continued to act as though neutrality rules still existed, lest they force the FCC's hand. I'm happy with the open access to net communications as it developed under Title II. With removal of authority over providers given Congressional imprimatur for the first time, we'd be moving into territory uncharted for net communications, but well-traveled for cable TV. I don't care to have my online access at the mercy of the same kind of tiered service and take-it-or-leave-it menu imposed by my TV provider.