For those who like to say "nice" things about Big Government and Big
Business,
for example, how they are ruining the world, we really should not overlook
the role of Big Computer in destroying civilization as we know it.
BR
--------------------------------------------
WIRED
We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It
* By _Marvin Ammori_ (http://www.wired.com/opinion/author/mammori/)
* 11.04.13
Net neutrality is a dead man walking. The execution date isn’t set, but it
could be days, or months (at best). And since net neutrality is the
principle forbidding huge telecommunications companies from treating users,
websites, or apps differently — say, by letting some work better than others
over their pipes — the dead man walking isn’t some abstract or far-removed
principle just for wonks: It affects the internet as we all know it.
Once upon a time, companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others
declared a war on the internet’s foundational principle: that its networks
should
be “neutral” and users don’t need anyone’s permission to invent, create,
communicate, broadcast, or share online. The neutral and level playing
field provided by _permissionless innovation_
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html) has
empowered all of us with the
freedom to express ourselves and innovate online without having to _seek the
permission_
(http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/02/the-latest-sneaky-plan-to-rob-americans-of-a-public-telco-network/)
of a remote telecom executive.
But today, that freedom won’t survive much longer if a federal court —
the second most powerful court in the nation behind the Supreme Court, the DC
Circuit — is set to strike down the nation’s net neutrality law, a rule
adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010. Some will claim
the new solution “_splits the baby_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_the_baby) ” in a way that somehow doesn’t
kill net neutrality and so we should
be grateful. But make no mistake: Despite eight years of public and
political activism by multitudes fighting for _freedom_
(http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/01/the-internet-deserves-its-own-holiday/)
on the internet, a court
decision may soon take it away.
Game of Loopholes and Rules
How did we get here?
The CEO of AT&T _told_
(http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-11-06/rewired-and-ready-for-combat)
an interviewer back in 2005 that he wanted to
introduce a new business model to the internet: charging companies like
Google and Yahoo! to reliably reach internet users on the AT&T network. Keep
in
mind that users already pay to access the internet and that Google and
Yahoo! already pay other telecom companies — often called backbone providers —
to connect to these internet users. [Disclosure: I have done legal work
for several companies supporting network neutrality, including Google.]
But AT&T wanted to add an additional toll, beyond what it already made
from the internet. Shortly after that, a Verizon executive _voiced_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601624.html)
agreement, hoping to end what he called tech companies’ “free lunch”. It
turns out that around the same time, Comcast had begun _secretly
trialing_ (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/files/comcastic.pdf)
services to block some of the web’s most popular applications that could pose
a
competitive threat to Comcast, such as BitTorrent.
Yet the phone and cable companies tried to dress up their plans as a false
compromise. Counterintuitively, they supported telecommunications
_legislation_ (http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2006/20060608a.asp)
in
2006 that would authorize the FCC to stop phone and cable companies from
blocking websites.
There was a catch, however. The bills included an exception that swallowed
the rule: the FCC would be unable to stop cable and phone companies from
taxing innovators or providing worse service to some sites and better
service to others. Since we know internet users tend to _quit using_
(http://blog.kissmetrics.com/loading-time/) a website or application if it
loads even
just a few seconds slower than a competitor’s version, this no-blocking rule
would essentially have enabled the phone and cable companies to
discriminate by picking website/app/platform winners and losers. (Congress
would
merely enact the loophole. Think of it as a safe harbor for discriminating
online.)
Luckily, consumer groups, technology companies, political leaders, and
American citizens saw through the nonsense and rallied around a principle to
preserve the internet’s openness. They advocated for one simple, necessary
rule — a nondiscrimination principle that became known as “network
neutrality”. This principle would forbid phone and cable companies not only
from
blocking — but also from discriminating between or entering in special
business deals to the benefit of — some sites over others.
Both sides battled out the issues before Congress, federal agencies, and
in several senate and presidential campaigns over the next five years. These
fights culminated in the 2010 FCC decision that included the
nondiscrimination rule.
Unfortunately, the rule still had major loopholes — especially when it
came to mobile networks. It also was built, to some extent, on a shaky
political foundation because the then-FCC chairman repeatedly folded when
facing
pressure. Still, the adopted rule was better than nothing, and it was a major
advance over AT&T’s opening bid in 2005 of a no-blocking rule.
As a result, Verizon _took_
(http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/hey-dont-forget-about-internet-access-in-the-u-s/)
the FCC to court to void the
2010 FCC rule. Verizon went to court to attack the part of the rule
forbidding them from discriminating among websites and applications; from
setting up
— on what we once called the information superhighway — the equivalents
of tollbooths, fast lanes, and dirt roads.
There and Back Again
So that’s where we are today — waiting for the most powerful court in the
nation, the DC Circuit, to rule in Verizon’s case. During the case’s oral
argument, back in early September, corporate lobbyists, lawyers, financial
analysts, and consumer advocates packed into the courtroom: some sitting,
some standing, some relegated to an overflow room.
Since then, everyone interested in internet freedom has been waiting for
an opinion — including everyday folks who search the web or share their
thoughts in 140 characters; and including me, who argued the first (losing)
network neutrality case before the DC Circuit in 2010.
But, in their questions and statements during oral argument, the judges
have made clear how they planned to rule — for the phone and cable companies,
not for those who use the internet. While the FCC has the power to impose
the toothless “no-blocking” rule (originally proposed by AT&T above), it
does not (the court will say) have the power to impose the essential “
nondiscrimination” rule.
It looks like we’ll end up where AT&T initially began: a false compromise.
The implications of such a decision would be profound. Web and mobile
companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology and design,
but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others.
This means large phone and cable companies will be able to “shakedown”
startups and established companies in every sector, requiring payment for
reliable service. In fact, during the oral argument in the current case,
Verizon’s
lawyer said, “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for
these [FCC] rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.”
Wait, it gets even worse. Pricing isn’t even a necessary forcing factor.
Once the court voids the nondiscrimination rule, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast
will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably
than others for any reason. Whim. Envy. Ignorance. Competition. Vengeance.
Whatever. Or, no reason at all.
So what if you’ve got a great new company, an amazing group of founders, a
seat in a reputable accelerator program, great investors and mentors. With
the permission-based innovation over “our pipes” desired from the likes
of Comcast, Verizon and AT&T… there’s no meritocracy here.
Of course, despite everything the judges suggested during the two-hour
argument, it’s possible that they offer net neutrality a reprieve. Given how
sticky this morass is, there’s one simple way for you to judge the opinion:
If the court throws out the non-discrimination rule, permission-less
innovation on the internet as we know it is done. If the nondiscrimination rule
miraculously survives, then, for now at least, so too will freedom on the
internet.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
