The Nation gets hip to Network Neutrality... > From The Nation [posted online on February 1, 2006] > > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester > > The End of the Internet? > > by JEFF CHESTER > > The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an > alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and > nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded > service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. > > Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are > developing strategies that would track and store information on our > every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing > system, the scope of which could rival the National Security > Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the > cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the > deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major > advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these > providers would have first priority on our computer and television > screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to- > peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply > shut out. > > Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content > providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, > stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling > new subscription plans that would further limit the online > experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of > Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, > media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. > > To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable > lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken > the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal > government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital > communications services as private networks, free of policy > safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and > the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering > proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's > future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised > Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are > using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or > clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged > digital retail machine. > > The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable > industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone > executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new > scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major > Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of > AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed > to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because > we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a > Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes > [for] free is nuts!" > > The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win > the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a > recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a > think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media > companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies > to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers > different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's > resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based > capitalist economy." > > Net Neutrality > > To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information > highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are > calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on > the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media > Access Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed > that broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating > against all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable > companies would not be allowed to slow down competing or > undesirable content. > > Without proactive intervention, the values and issues that we care > about--civil rights, economic justice, the environment and fair > elections--will be further threatened by this push for corporate > control. Imagine how the next presidential election would unfold if > major political advertisers could make strategic payments to > Comcast so that ads from Democratic and Republican candidates were > more visible and user-friendly than ads of third-party candidates > with less funds. Consider what would happen if an online > advertisement promoting nuclear power prominently popped up on a > cable broadband page, while a competing message from an > environmental group was relegated to the margins. It is possible > that all forms of civic and noncommercial online programming would > be pushed to the end of a commercial digital queue. > > But such "neutrality" safeguards are inadequate to address more > fundamental changes the Bells and cable monopolies are seeking in > their quest to monetize the Internet. If we permit the Internet to > become a medium designed primarily to serve the interests of > marketing and personal consumption, rather than global civic- > related communications, we will face the political consequences for > decades to come. Unless we push back, the "brandwashing" of America > will permeate not only our information infrastructure but global > society and culture as well. > > Why are the Bells and cable companies aggressively advancing such > plans? With the arrival of the long-awaited "convergence" of > communications, our media system is undergoing a major > transformation. Telephone and cable giants envision a potential > lucrative "triple play," as they impose near-monopoly control over > the residential broadband services that send video, voice and data > communications flowing into our televisions, home computers, cell > phones and iPods. All of these many billions of bits will be > delivered over the telephone and cable lines. > > Video programming is of foremost interest to both the phone and > cable companies. The telephone industry, like its cable rival, is > now in the TV and media business, offering customers television > channels, on-demand videos and games. Online advertising is > increasingly integrating multimedia (such as animation and full- > motion video) in its pitches. Since video-driven material requires > a great deal of Internet bandwidth as it travels online, phone and > cable companies want to make sure their television "applications" > receive preferential treatment on the networks they operate. And > their overall influence over the stream of information coming into > your home (or mobile device) gives them the leverage to determine > how the broadband business evolves. > > Mining Your Data > > At the core of the new power held by phone and cable companies are > tools delivering what is known as "deep packet inspection." With > these tools, AT&T and others can readily know the packets of > information you are receiving online--from e-mail, to websites, to > sharing of music, video and software downloads. > > These "deep packet inspection" technologies are partly designed to > make sure that the Internet pipeline doesn't become so congested it > chokes off the delivery of timely communications. Such products > have already been sold to universities and large businesses that > want to more economically manage their Internet services. They are > also being used to limit some peer-to-peer downloading, especially > for music. > > But these tools are also being promoted as ways that companies, > such as Comcast and Bell South, can simply grab greater control > over the Internet. For example, in a series of recent white papers, > Internet technology giant Cisco urges these companies to "meter > individual subscriber usage by application," as individuals' online > travels are "tracked" and "integrated with billing systems." Such > tracking and billing is made possible because they will know "the > identity and profile of the individual subscriber," "what the > subscriber is doing" and "where the subscriber resides." > > Will Google, Amazon and the other companies successfully fight the > plans of the Bells and cable companies? Ultimately, they are likely > to cut a deal because they, too, are interested in monetizing our > online activities. After all, as Cisco notes, content companies and > network providers will need to "cooperate with each other to > leverage their value proposition." They will be drawn by the > ability of cable and phone companies to track "content usage...by > subscriber," and where their online services can be "protected from > piracy, metered, and appropriately valued." > > Our Digital Destiny > > It was former FCC chairman Michael Powell, with the support of then- > commissioner and current chair Kevin Martin, who permitted phone > and cable giants to have greater control over broadband. Powell and > his GOP majority eliminated longstanding regulatory safeguards > requiring phone companies to operate as nondiscriminatory networks > (technically known as "common carriers"). He refused to require > that cable companies, when providing Internet access, also operate > in a similar nondiscriminatory manner. As Stanford University law > professor Lawrence Lessig has long noted, it is government > regulation of the phone lines that helped make the Internet today's > vibrant, diverse and democratic medium. > > But now, the phone companies are lobbying Washington to kill off > what's left of "common carrier" policy. They wish to operate their > Internet services as fully "private" networks. Phone and cable > companies claim that the government shouldn't play a role in > broadband regulation: Instead of the free and open network that > offers equal access to all, they want to reduce the Internet to a > series of business decisions between consumers and providers. > > Besides their business interests, telephone and cable companies > also have a larger political agenda. Both industries oppose giving > local communities the right to create their own local Internet > wireless or wi-fi networks. They also want to eliminate the last > vestige of local oversight from electronic media--the ability of > city or county government, for example, to require > telecommunications companies to serve the public interest with, for > example, public-access TV channels. The Bells also want to further > reduce the ability of the FCC to oversee communications policy. > They hope that both the FCC and Congress--via a new Communications > Act--will back these proposals. > > The future of the online media in the United States will ultimately > depend on whether the Bells and cable companies are allowed to > determine the country's "digital destiny." So before there are any > policy decisions, a national debate should begin about how the > Internet should serve the public. We must insure that phone and > cable companies operate their Internet services in the public > interest--as stewards for a vital medium for free expression. > > If Americans are to succeed in designing an equitable digital > destiny for themselves, they must mount an intensive opposition > similar to the successful challenges to the FCC's media ownership > rules in 2003. Without such a public outcry to rein in the GOP's > corporate-driven agenda, it is likely that even many of the > Democrats who rallied against further consolidation will be "tamed" > by the well-funded lobbying campaigns of the powerful phone and > cable industry.
-- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
