“When we log onto the Internet, we take a lot for granted.  We assume we’ll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want, at the fastest speed – whether it’s a corporate or mom-and-pop site.  We assume that we can use any service we like – watching online video, listening to podcasts, sending instant messages – anytime we choose” (Free Press). 

 

But it is exactly this notion, this principle of equal access and freedom of speech on the World Wide Web that is in a dangerous state.  A number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner, have developed technologies enabling them to act in their own economic interests by controlling the speed at which different websites and applications load.  They are attempting to act as gatekeepers of information, controlling which websites users have fast and uninterrupted access to.  They are creating a world in which users can easily connect to websites launched by corporations willing to shell out enormous sums of money for fast and uninterrupted service as well as websites within the provider’s affiliation, but may have difficulty accessing websites launched by the provider’s competitors or smaller, private organizations that actually meet their interests, but cannot afford to pay ISPs for faster access.

 

What is Network Neutrality?

 

Network Neutrality, or Net Neutrality as it is often called, refers to the belief that the Internet should remain open to free speech and equal access for all users and content providers regardless of their level of corporate affiliation. 

 

“Net Neutrality means no discrimination.  Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination” (SavetheInternet.com).

 

SavetheInternet.com serves as “an alliance of hundreds of organizations and small businesses, thousands of bloggers, and millions of concerned citizens urging Congress to put Network Neutrality back into law”.  The website is just one of many organizations working to preserve individual freedoms on the Internet and is associated with Free Press, a non-profit organization dedicated to “media reform and Internet policy issues”.  The organization posted a propaganda video in favor of Net Neutrality on the popular website, YouTube, offering a comprehensive summary on the war against corporate control on the Internet.

 

Another video also offers a summary of the issues and controversies surrounding Net Neutrality.

 

 

Debates over freedom of speech and corporate control of media are not unique to the Internet.  Similar concepts over the ideals of free speech and the public forum emerged in the 1800s existing in the early days of the telegraph and the telephone.  Debates over Net Neutrality and corporate control closely mirror the creation of the automatic telephone exchange by Almon Brown Strowger in 1888 which allowed “biased telephone operators [to divert] unsuspecting customers to [its] competitors” (Wikipedia).  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has enacted “non-discrimination” policies over the radio and television industries since the 1930s.  A diverse range of viewpoints have emerged surrounding Net Neutrality and corporate control.  Unlike radio and television, the Internet emerged and operated for many years free of regulation.  Therefore there is no precedent for FCC commissioners to act upon in the history of communications.

 

 

The Internet: A Marketplace of Ideas in Danger

 

Up until recent years, the Internet has operated as a free and open marketplace in which users possess the power within their fingertips to access any information they choose at their demand.  But in recent years, a number of media companies have been utilizing the technological revolution to their economic advantage controlling or blocking competing content.  In a sense, these corporations are violating anti-monopoly laws written by the FCC in the early days of the radio and television in unprecedented ways.  In 2006, COX Cable blocked access to popular online marketplace, Craigslist, as it provided strong competition against their own classified advertising site.  Similarly, a year earlier, Time Warner blocked emails sent to AOL customers regarding a proposal by the company to implement a pay-to-send email programs.  Just this past year, Comcast blocked access to “competing content-sharing applications”. 

 

Actions such as these can be particularly problematic for users.  Not only are users less informed on important issues, but they are also prevented from choosing another ISP if they do not approve of the practices of their own.  In most areas, users only have access to one, or possibly two, Internet Providers.

 

Consequences of a World without Net Neutrality

 

Supporters of Net Neutrality are simply attempting to preserve the basic principles that made the Internet such a unique and powerful medium in the first place.  Placing control in the hands of a few major corporations would yield devastating effects on the ways in which the Internet operates.  Supporters of Net Neutrality fear that “innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted” (Free Press) as a result. 

 

This may not be far from the truth.  Imagine how enormous technology start-ups such as Google and Facebook, both strong and outspoken supporters of Net Neutrality, would have succeeded in an already controlled marketplace.  The free and open characteristics of the Internet is exactly what allowed these organizations to “launch, grow, and innovate” (Google).  In a world absent of Net Neutrality, success will be impossible for entrepreneurs and technology startups to compete as smaller organizations will be left in an inferior position within a corporate controlled Internet marketplace.

 

Through an increase in the access and availability of new media technologies as well as the proliferation of the Internet in recent years, Americans have entered into what Henry Jenkins describes as a participatory culture.  Users are not only capable of accessing an endless array of content suiting their needs, but are also able of producing their own content in a number of ways unprecedented in other forms of media.  For example, while the United States is at war with Iraq, a growing number of Americans have become dissatisfied with the biased, corporate controlled content provided by mainstream news broadcasts.  Many have turned to bloggers and “citizen journalists” for news and political updates.  Allowing ISPs to control the flow of content on the Internet will make these tools more expensive and less accessible to the general public, therefore inhibiting the flow of information.

 

In its current state, there is enormous potential for political viewpoints and opinions to be expressed on the Internet.  Dissatisfied with the “corporately controlled content” they are receiving from the major networks, more and more people are turning to other forms of media for access to news and information on political campaigns.  Statistics reveal that 39% of people watched nightly news broadcasts for information on political campaigns in 2000 compared to only 23% of respondents in 2004.  Bloggers and “citizen journalists” provide like-minded readers with news and viewpoints often underrepresented by mainstream media and through the Internet, viewers access news and information through a diverse range of outlets. 

 

As demonstrated in recent years, new media and digital technologies play an increasingly more important role within political campaigns and have been greatly successful in engaging the younger demographic.  As held by Common Cause, a non-profit organization that analyzes government organizations and their decisions and aims to keep them in check: “Net Neutrality is the reason this democratic medium has grown exponentially, fueled innovation, and altered how we communicate.  We must make certain that for-profit groups do not destroy the democratic culture of the web”.  In a world without Net Neutrality, the public will not be adequately served.  The Internet will operate similarly to television and radio, under corporate control that will be reflected in biased content as smaller, underrepresented political groups and opinions go unheard. 

 

Supporters of Net Neutrality feel that creating a corporately controlled environment on the World Wide Web will inhibit innovation.  They fear that there will be no drive for software developers and network engineers to succeed in evolving the Internet to its full potential and “will prevent the expansion and improvement of Internet access for their customers” (Wikipedia).

 

Opponents of Net Neutrality reason that enabling the Internet to remain free and open could “hinder public safety and homeland security” and identify financial concerns and sources of funding as their rationale for supporting corporate control over the Internet.  A number of these opponents formed an alliance on Hands Off The Internet, a website funded by AT&T.

 

The Future of the Internet

 

Many feel that the answer to freedom of opinion and expression lies somewhere between corporate controls and Net Neutrality.  As stated by Vint Cerf of Internet Protocol, “The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services.  A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive” (Wikipedia).  There are number of supporters of a free and open Internet who feel that corporate control is necessary in order to ensure a particular level of quality of service.  Many think of Net Neutrality “as equal treatment among similar applications, rather than neutral transmissions regardless of applications”(Wikipedia) as described by Columbia University Law School Professor Tim Wu.

 

Currently, Comcast and popular file sharing website BitTorrent are forming a coalition that may affect future developments in Net Neutrality.  The two websites collided in 2007 after Comcast was accused of slowing down file sharing traffic.  It is difficult to predict the future of the Internet, but I believe it will become increasing important for Internet Service Providers and users to work together in order for the Internet to continue to operate as a thriving marketplace of ideas. 

For More Information and To Get Involved

SaveTheInternet.com

Free Press

Wikipedia

Common Cause

The Free Expression Policy Project

Google