On Net Neutrality: What’s the debate about and why does it affect us?
On May 2, The New York Times offered one of the most oversimplified explanations of Net Neutrality that could exist in this complex debate between the advocates of “Internet freedom” and the service providers who give users access to the Web. They wrote:
Where did this debate come from? Why now? Apparently, this conflict didn’t exist before 2004, when the FCC got rid of their nondiscrimination safeguards that were put in place 25 years ago to ensure that customers weren’t taken for a ride by their cable or telephone providers. Subsequently, the door was left open for the network providers (in our case Comcast, Verizon, et al.) to increase their share of the broadband market, most of which has been going to web based businesses and content providers who benefited from the free and open nature of the Web, rather than those cable and telephone companies that provide access. Those content providers and web based businesses saw this situation and said to themselves, “Uh oh. Comcast could to try and control access the Internet to make more money for themselves. We need a law to stop this.”
Suddenly the future of the Internet has been put into question. Will the Internet be regulated by the government to stop corporate control and abuse? Or will the government take a hands off approach, leaving network providers free to break the Internet into tiers based on the level of fees paid by users? Or will it stay basically the same?
Before I choose a side to lambaste, I should first briefly layout the arguments from both sides. The advocates of Net Neutrality define their slogan as the very principle that makes the Internet a force that has revolutionized our tiny blue planet. Currently, the control over the World Wide Web lies with its users, the “edges” of the network as Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and “Internet Evangelist” for Google calls them. In this way the Web is decentralized, free for innovation and creativity, and its power is vested in the common people that make up the majority of its users – a very democratic principle they like to emphasize. Network providers, on the other hand, represent the real possibility that this free and open Internet might be put in jeopardy, as these corporations are capable of tactics that could strip away open access to the Web, in favor of greater returns through toll like fees. Google VP Cerf put it this way in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on this issue last summer, “[A] clear and present danger…confronts us: replacing the open and innovative Internet owned by the many, with a closed and proprietary system controlled by a few.”
The side representing the interests of the network providers, on the other hand, say this has all been blown way out of proportion, and that placing such regulations on the network providers would in effect bring about the same consequences the “net-neutralizers” are trying to avoid. They call the Net Neutrality position a solution that is looking for a problem. In the same senate debate I alluded to earlier, Walter McCormick, the President and CEO of the US Telecom Association had this to say:
To Verizon and Comcast and the rest, the question is less about them as a threat to a free and open Internet, but more about their right to develop and grow as companies in their markets. (And to dominate them if they should so choose, but promise not to, of course.) But, the question of net-neutrality is parsed down to this: The Internet should be free and open for who? Everyone is the popular answer, and the right one in the generally vacuous world of ethics. But in our reality, and a basic principle of economics, not everybody can have an equal share.
So what’s the best choice? Network providers have pledged – and continue to pledge – their allegiance to the American values of open markets and freedom of speech and all that jazz. Their position is that they are just as much a part of the American dream as the Joes they provide Internet access to. I agree, they started out small just like every other small business who makes a buck off the web, and they made it big. More power to them. But in the end it comes down to responsibility. Stan Lee said in Spiderman or something (sorry for using this, but it’s too easy), that “with great power comes great responsibility.”
And in this case, those with the greatest power to do the most damage – Verizon, Comcast et al – their responsibilities lie with their investors, and not necessarily with the consumer or small businesses like Raphael Webscapes, LLC. For this reason we support Senate legislation to keep the Internet free and open for those of us on the “edges of the network,” rather than those companies who would seek to be its center.
For more information on how to help keep the Internet free click here.
For a full text of the Senate debate click here.
“Net neutrality” is a concept that is still unfamiliar to most Americans, but it keeps the Internet democratic. Cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service are talking about creating a two-tiered Internet, in which Websites that pay them large fees would get priority over everything else. Opponents of these plans are supporting Net-neutrality legislation, which would require websites to be treated equally. (click here for full text)The editorial goes on to describe senate legislation that would prohibit Internet providers from creating such a “two-tiered” Internet, and encourages all legislators who care about the World Wide Web and its users to hop onboard. The way the editorial board at the Times articulates the debate, drenched in the language of democracy and equal opportunity, how could anybody possibly mount an argument against them? Net Neutrality is democratic, thus everyone who opposes it is fascist and un-American. It isn’t the most balanced or informed view, but the implications the paper alludes to are accurate enough. They are a worst-case scenario in the fight over government regulation of the Internet versus its potential domination by greedy corporate powers. Either way, both sides predict the similar outcomes if either is let to win: the free and innovative spirit of the Internet, so essential to its success in fostering business and otherwise, will suffocate and die.
Where did this debate come from? Why now? Apparently, this conflict didn’t exist before 2004, when the FCC got rid of their nondiscrimination safeguards that were put in place 25 years ago to ensure that customers weren’t taken for a ride by their cable or telephone providers. Subsequently, the door was left open for the network providers (in our case Comcast, Verizon, et al.) to increase their share of the broadband market, most of which has been going to web based businesses and content providers who benefited from the free and open nature of the Web, rather than those cable and telephone companies that provide access. Those content providers and web based businesses saw this situation and said to themselves, “Uh oh. Comcast could to try and control access the Internet to make more money for themselves. We need a law to stop this.”
Suddenly the future of the Internet has been put into question. Will the Internet be regulated by the government to stop corporate control and abuse? Or will the government take a hands off approach, leaving network providers free to break the Internet into tiers based on the level of fees paid by users? Or will it stay basically the same?
Before I choose a side to lambaste, I should first briefly layout the arguments from both sides. The advocates of Net Neutrality define their slogan as the very principle that makes the Internet a force that has revolutionized our tiny blue planet. Currently, the control over the World Wide Web lies with its users, the “edges” of the network as Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and “Internet Evangelist” for Google calls them. In this way the Web is decentralized, free for innovation and creativity, and its power is vested in the common people that make up the majority of its users – a very democratic principle they like to emphasize. Network providers, on the other hand, represent the real possibility that this free and open Internet might be put in jeopardy, as these corporations are capable of tactics that could strip away open access to the Web, in favor of greater returns through toll like fees. Google VP Cerf put it this way in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on this issue last summer, “[A] clear and present danger…confronts us: replacing the open and innovative Internet owned by the many, with a closed and proprietary system controlled by a few.”
The side representing the interests of the network providers, on the other hand, say this has all been blown way out of proportion, and that placing such regulations on the network providers would in effect bring about the same consequences the “net-neutralizers” are trying to avoid. They call the Net Neutrality position a solution that is looking for a problem. In the same senate debate I alluded to earlier, Walter McCormick, the President and CEO of the US Telecom Association had this to say:
I would like…to advise caution in the so-called ‘net neutrality’ debate… Consumers today have – and will continue to have – the freedom to call or e-mail whomever they choose, and to visit any legal website without being blocked, without their service being impaired or degraded….The notion that Congress should rush to regulate the Internet – in anticipation of a problem that may never manifest – is dangerous. This extreme position would not preserve the free and open Internet we enjoy today, it would certainly stifle its future development and growth. (click here for full text)
To Verizon and Comcast and the rest, the question is less about them as a threat to a free and open Internet, but more about their right to develop and grow as companies in their markets. (And to dominate them if they should so choose, but promise not to, of course.) But, the question of net-neutrality is parsed down to this: The Internet should be free and open for who? Everyone is the popular answer, and the right one in the generally vacuous world of ethics. But in our reality, and a basic principle of economics, not everybody can have an equal share.
So what’s the best choice? Network providers have pledged – and continue to pledge – their allegiance to the American values of open markets and freedom of speech and all that jazz. Their position is that they are just as much a part of the American dream as the Joes they provide Internet access to. I agree, they started out small just like every other small business who makes a buck off the web, and they made it big. More power to them. But in the end it comes down to responsibility. Stan Lee said in Spiderman or something (sorry for using this, but it’s too easy), that “with great power comes great responsibility.”
And in this case, those with the greatest power to do the most damage – Verizon, Comcast et al – their responsibilities lie with their investors, and not necessarily with the consumer or small businesses like Raphael Webscapes, LLC. For this reason we support Senate legislation to keep the Internet free and open for those of us on the “edges of the network,” rather than those companies who would seek to be its center.
For more information on how to help keep the Internet free click here.
For a full text of the Senate debate click here.
posted by Matt Lindeboom at 2:37 PM
0 comments
Forbes Magazine has again announced the website of the International Nanny Association (
