23 October 2009

Net Neutrality: Why You Should Care

America could easily mistake its head for its ass. The fact that some subjects are even debatable shows not only the gullibility of humanity, but the insidious influence that power-hungry corporations have over the officials that we elect into office. The two main debates of the moment are that of healthcare reform and that of Net Neutrality. As a rational, compassionate, middle-to-lower-class, independent consumer, these two initiatives get a giant thumbs up from me; they address exactly what I am concerned about as an individual and as a society. Healthcare reform has been in the news for months now and you've probably already made up your mind about it, so I am going to focus this article on Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is the policy of preventing data providers (companies who own the cables, routers and switches that internet traffic flows through) from arbitrarily restricting or redirecting traffic to or from any source. In other words, AT&T is not allowed to prevent you from accessing its competitor's networks and websites, nor is it allowed to charge you extra for accessing bandwidth-heavy sites like YouTube or Hulu. This is a good thing. In fact, if you read over the 6 tenets of the Net Neutrality proposal (more on that a little later), you'll be left scratching your head and wondering why anyone with a conscience would ever oppose such decent terms.

The answer to that is money and power. AT&T and Verizon, along with many of their fellow ISPs and the politicians that they contribute money towards are all against Net Neutrality. This is because it is a policy that prevents them from capitalizing on the prime real estate that they've already staked out now that the internet has established itself. What you need to understand is that Net Neutrality has always existed in principle and now these companies are trying to repeal it through litigation and misinformed debate. Do not be fooled into considering their point of view because you will get nothing in return.

The necessity for Net Neutrality transcends convention. Whether you believe in socialism or capitalism, Net Neutrality should appear to you as the lifeblood policy of our society's future. Privatizing internet traffic will lead to stagnation, much the same way privatized healthcare has cannibalized itself in search of profit over service. The internet has become a huge part of our civilization, but its reach and utility is still in its infancy. Handing control of the traffic flow to a self-interested corporation is tantamount to selling the internet's soul. The internet owes its rapid growth and innovative environment to the policy of Net Neutrality, but as the companies that own the networks that support the internet's backbone seek to exert more control, we find ourselves vulnerable to the greed and misuse of power that we have come to expect from giant, faceless corporations.

Beyond all of the rhetoric that one can use to paint a bleaker picture, we can use logic to understand the opposition. For instance, John McCain, who admits to not even being interested in computers or the internet, who could not be a worse candidate to extol the plight of network sovereignty, has proposed the sinisterly named "Internet Freedom Act" that seeks to give all the freedom to the service providers while shafting all of the consumers (that's you and me). Even a staunch capitalist can see the flaw in this design. This is an example of a senator who cannot, by virtue of his own admittance, understand the effects of what he has proposed beyond their financial and political implications. We know that we cannot let people who do not understand the internet create policy to govern it. Furthermore, we can assume that someone so unfamiliar with the territory he is treading upon has been coerced there by parties interested in using him as a mouthpiece.

Let's go over the Net Neutrality policy, just so that we're all on the same page. Here are the 6 tenets of Net Neutrality that the FCC has come up with and I think you'll find them all astoundingly reasonable:

Under the draft rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not:
1) prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;
2) prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;
3) prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;
4) deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.
5) A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.
6) A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.


Here's the summary: FCC says, "Hey ISPs, don't fuck around with your honest users." The response? "But we want to."

This cannot be put any clearer: if you oppose Net Neutrality, you are EVIL. You are either a power-mongering fiend or a complicit pawn.

I offer this information not because I think you don't support Net Neutrality, but because I fear that many people may not be aware of how important it is. They may have heard about it before and dismissed it as some nerdy debate. It goes beyond any geeky point of contention. Net Neutrality affects how much you pay for utilities, how you talk to your friends, how you use the internet, how new interconnected technologies are developed and how our civilization grows around this amazing network of ideas. If you never thought to before, speak up and do not let our future fall into the hands of the parsimonious degenerates who only want control.

15 nibbles:

  1. No objection here. I thank you for explaining Net Nuetrality in more laymens' terms. When you state, "...I fear that many people may not be aware of how important it is." I couldnt agree more. Up to a couple months ago, I was ignorant of Net Nuetrality. Now, I am more education.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmm...

    Did you even take a moment to view the situation from the POV of a company that has invested billions of dollars in infrastructure?

    Say you spend $1 million on a really fast car. Would you want someone else to dictate how often you lend that car to people you don't know, for a nominal fee?

    (Lame analogy, but perhaps you get the idea.)

    Not that I disagree with 'Net neutrality, but still... it's the SOFTWARE and SERVICE industry that are FOR net neutrality -- they USE the network, just like you and I. They don't own it -- that's Verizon, UUNET, Ignite, etc.
    ReplyDelete
  3. ISPs get paid by consumers and the government already. They didn't invest billions on the off-chance that legislature would go their way. They are already compensated for their role. Their attempts to abolish Net Neutrality are power plays.

    Of course its the software industry that is for net neutrality. Their products can be rendered useless if a large ISP decides to screw around. What's your point?
    ReplyDelete
  4. OK -- if Sainsburys decided to stop stocking a specific product, because they felt like it, do you think you could run to a regulator and get them to restock it...?

    I agree, in this situation, given the implicit upstream agreements that the Internet runs on, that there isn't really any other solution here.

    But it's very easy to hate the big players. It's very easy to hide behind a blog and sling shit at someone like Microsoft or Verizon or (insert other tyrannical overlord here)

    In fact, that's exactly what Google & Co. are doing -- they know they're unimpeachable.

    I just imagine if Google had laid all the cables, a different story might be unfolding.

    Btw, most big cables are privately funded.
    ReplyDelete
  5. You should know I'm all for socialism. So, if it comes down to the government stepping in and telling a company that it needs to be run a certain way for the COMMON GOOD, I am all for it. This is a great example of it.

    Besides, the ISPs are using terrible arguments to support their claims. The US pays more for their internet access than most of the civilized world, yet the average connection speed is abysmal. They are doing a horrible job right now and there is no reason to believe they would do any better if given free reign.

    On the other hand, my main argument, which is all this debate should really be about, is that the freedom of the average user needs to be preserved. If that benefits the software companies, so be it. No matter what, users should have equal access to the same internet as everyone else without having to pay extra for various parts of it or be blocked from accessing sites by arbitrary rules. End of story.
    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh one small addendum to the comment above: I meant "democratic socialism"
    ReplyDelete
  7. Hehe, you are taking too narrow a viewpoint.

    Do you think such networks would ever have existed in the first place under democratic socialism?

    Do you think, without proof of concept, that anyone would jump on the bandwagon?

    No. Private investors made the Internet possible. The alumni of universities made it possible.

    And now the government/regulators should suddenly lay claim to the invention, to the rights, to the governance...?

    Obviously, free speech is always great. But if you think of free speech as the 'inspiration' behind something -- what about the 'perspiration' bit?

    Do you actually think the world would be in the same place it is today if England/America/Other Technology-Rich Nations were more socialist than capitalist?

    It is OK to be a theoretical idealist -- ish -- but you have to try and remain a practical realist too!
    ReplyDelete
  8. The way I see it, the better countries to live in these days are the socialist ones. I'd be interested to have some of the info you're basing your opinions off of in any case.

    Things progress in phases. Now, if you say capitalism has gotten the internet this far, regardless of if that is accurate or not, we can't just assume it will be right going forward. After all, many governing systems have their sweet spots in terms of population size or economy size. I think the internet structure has outgrown capitalism.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Ah, now you're thinking, rather than just striking things down -- good.

    Certainly, different methods work for different countries, systems. There's even a place for dictatorship... in the right place, at the right time...!

    I like the Internet because it is really FREE -- free from labeling, too. It's a good thing, or a bad thing -- all depending on how you use it.

    I agree that it should remain free to all -- that's the fundamental point of it, to enable education and quick movement of data -- but don't forget that it has to continue being UPGRADED.

    Internet 2 has to become a reality, and then Internet 3. For the speeds and connectivity to keep on increasing, we rely on private investors.

    If more governments want to sign up and spend billions on infrastructure, then sure -- but right now there's only a handful of countries where that happens.
    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree, but I'm not so sure about what you said at the beginning. Where are you getting your information? I'm not disagreeing, but I'm just wondering how you came to that conclusion.

    Justin Davis
    Author does not represent the position of LSI, which screens content as an internet filter to K-12 institutions.
    ReplyDelete
  11. You'll have to be a bit more specific about "what I said at the beginning" because I'm not sure how I should respond to you. Clear that up and I'll be glad to give you a response.
    ReplyDelete
  12. "I like the Internet because it is really FREE"

    You have free internet? Where do I sign up?

    Seriously, even if it were free, and I suspect you meant free of control more strongly than free of hip pocket impact, I'm not convinced that's all it's cracked up to be.

    We have a problem on the internet present that consumes a significant proportion of the total bandwidth and time and energy of its users which exists primarily because it's pretty cheap, to the point of almost free for some and certainly imposes no realistic costs ... it is called spam.

    We are left to wonder how many more decades of bickering among internet pundits, between technical and social controls must go on before this ostensibly simple problem is eradicated or at least reigned in to the level of junk mail and unsolicited phone calls today (and even those we continue to reign in and constrain further because even print media, phone calls and call centre labour are so cheap that it's worthwhile to impose more than we like upon us).
    ReplyDelete
  13. Spam is a problem that is totally separate from the Net Neutrality debate. In my opinion, it is minor in comparison. Yes, spam is a big deal, but it is a tech issue more than a policy issue.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Agreed. Wasn't suggesting Spam related to net neutrality, but to the notion that the net was FREE (in the fiscal sense, costing no dollars, rather than the sense of rights and privileges, i.e. freedom). It's being (almost) free in this regard (which it isn't at my end ;-) is a strong contributor to its abuse.

    Neutrality in the sense of your article is indeed another thing. But it's also different from it's being free. it can be neutral in this sense but still cost us, as long as the cost is impartial with regards to the content of the data being transferred (places I visit, things I look at etc). Much in the way that the price of petrol is (more or less) independent of where I drive and what I do there (in an urban context at least). So too, my being billed for time on-line or even bits delivered and sent is not in conflict with neutrality.
    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, I would like to point out that it was Sebastian who made the "free" comment. If I used the word "free," I meant it as in "libre" as opposed to "gratis."
    ReplyDelete