why network neutrality matters, and is worth fighting for

For weeks, I've been trying to write about why Network Neutrality is so important, and why everyone who spends even three minutes a day online should be writing, calling, and faxing their representatives in Congress relentlessly until the so-called First Amendment of the Internet is guaranteed and becomes law. But whenever I start, I end up angry and depressed and frustrated, and the words just won't come.

Today, Adam Green has a brilliant post at HuffPo that puts into simple language exactly why Network Neutrality is so important:

As the New York Times editorialized today:

 

"Net neutrality" is a concept that is still unfamiliar to most Americans, but it keeps the Internet democratic. ... One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page. But this democratic Internet would be in danger if the companies that deliver Internet service changed the rules so that Web sites that pay them money would be easily accessible, while little-guy sites would be harder to access and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they do not like.

If Net Neutrality is gutted, Google, eBay, and YouTube either pay protection money to companies like AT&T or risk that their sites process slowly on your computer. Comcast could intentionally slow access to iTunes, steering Internet customers its own music service. And the little guy with the next big idea would be muscled out of the marketplace, relegated to the "slow lane" of the information superhighway.

This isn't just speculation -- it's already happened in places without Net Neutrality. Heck, AT&T's CEO blatantly announced, "The Internet can't be free."

That's why an Internet revolt has begun--a revolt that [Telecom spokesman Mike] McCurry belittles. Folks as diverse as Craig from Craigslist, MoveOn, Gun Owners of America,  Google, eBay, and Amazon are all fighting back. 350,000 people signed a petition demanding Congress preserve Internet freedom, over 2,000 blogs have rallied the public, and even some celebrities are chiming in.

Craig Fields from Gun Owners of America hit the target right-on when he said

"Whenever you see people on the far left and far right joining together about something Congress is getting ready to do, it's been my experience that what Congress is getting ready to do is basically un-American."

(Emphasis mine)

There's much more to his post, including a smackdown of Mike McCurry, who has become and outright lying shill for powerful telecom interests like AT&T who want to force a fundamental change to the way the Internet operates. Please read it. I think it's the most important thing you'll read today, and should help everyone who's heard about this issue (but doesn't know exactly what it is -- which includes a lot of people, including myself until about last week) understand why it's so important.

On a personal note: without the Internet, I'd be just another failed actor struggling to make ends meet. Because I had the same ability to put together a website and reach an audience as anyone else, I was able to put my words on your screens, and eventually into a book that got into many of your hands. If AT&T or some other big telecom decided that regular guys like me had to pay some sort of protection money to have the same ability to reach you as Google or MSN does, I never would have been able to get WWdN off the ground, much less found Monolith Press, publish Dancing Barefoot, and start an entirely new career as a writer.

We've all taken for granted that we'll have equal access to the Internet, both as consumers and as creators of content. Right now, very powerful, very greedy, and very un-democratic businesses are trying very hard to take that away from us. They must be stopped.

Again, Adam Green:

The only way to protect Net Neutrality is for Congress to take action now, as it re-writes our nation's telecom laws. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) have introduced legislation to do this. Mike McCurry and his clients like AT&T are fighting it tooth and nail.

If you are outraged, don't just sit there . . .  take these steps:

1. SIGN a Net Neutrality petition to Congress:

2. CALL Congress now:

3. BLOG about this issue, or put our "Save the Internet" logo on your Web site:

4. MYSPACE: Add "Save the Internet" as a friend:

5. WRITE A LETTER to Congress:

6. VISIT our coalition Web site for more information, SavetheInternet.com

Comments

[Wil]

And I didn't even make that link myself. That's from a quoted bit of text, which was originally written by a Far Right author.

Thanks for pointing that out, mspixiechick. I'm just positive an apology will be coming right away.

And thanks for elevating the discussion by lamely attempting to insult me, Excal1701. That's very mature. Next time, I suggest pulling out your sharpest "your mom" line, and giving it a try.

[Joe]

If a bill was passed that made corporate executives liable and responsible for their own actions, we would all be better off as a people.

The solution is simple. Allow companies to exist, but return moral and legal liability to the people acting on behalf of their company. Just revoke their corporate charters, and problem solved!

Imagine if Enron's CEO Ken Lay was legally held accountable for all of his actions and not protected by the Corporate Charter...

He'd be giving Scott Peterson a pedicure today, and his last name would become a verb after lunch.

[tina]

Count me in on the fight. As I mentioned in my letters to my elected representativies, the internet has become our best tool for maintaining and spreading liberal democracy, if you mess with it, you are showing yourself to be a plutocratic oligarch. Or as my neice would say a big stinky head.

[hobbesme]

I too won't claim to understand all the issues, but working for an Internet development company that partners with Internet equipment manufacturers, I agree with thorkia :

"Data transfer isn't cheap. Laying fibre isn't cheap. Backbone internet routers aren't cheap..."

I too love my "free" Internet. As a consumer, who doesn't love "free" Internet? And when I say "free", I mean that for most ISPs there is NO additional fee beyond the paltry monthly ISP service charge compared to the amount of Internet content users consume.

NO other utility provides similar "free" service &/or goods. All other utilities provide a service or good that is charged proportionally -- water, electric, telephone, gasoline, oil. In other words, when you use 2000 gallons of water in a month, you're charged for 2000; you use 6000, you're charged for 6000.

ISPs a decade ago started out with a standard "low" fee. This was probably based on the estimated Internet content each subscriber would likely use, in part based on the type of Internet content available at the time (simple web pages, email). Also, ISPs couldn't have attracted business to a new market without having a low price point.

But 10 years later, with literally terra-terra-terra-terra bytes of Internet content available to be downloaded around the clock by millions of users, the "free" model is NOT as cost-effective as it once was.

Therefore, possible solutions are to (1) charge for quality of service, (2) charge
ISP customers based on proportional service usage, or (3) charge based on site specifics/demographics.

The first two options are reasonable, everyday capitalist options. Everyone will hate these options because they've been spoiled by "free" Internet for 5+ years now, but it's not any different than paying more when you use more water or gas or electricity.

But I agree that the third option that allows ISPs to regulate Internet traffic to specific sites of their choosing would be very, very bad for everyone all across the globe. (Especially in far less democractic nations where the Internet is a new tool that provides the potential for freedom of expression.)

[Joker Cross]

I too won't claim to understand all the issues, but working for an Internet development company that partners with Internet equipment manufacturers,
------------------

You clearly don't understand all the issues. If it was about usage, we wouldn't be complaining nearly as much. But it's not about usage. It's about the right to usage. It's about the corporatization of the net. Making it so only those with the financial clout have the right to be heard. Making it so your mailbox is for sale (AOL is trying to do this now) and all the spam filters in the world won't help you. If they pay to fill your box with shit, it will be full of shit.(dearaol.com) And if you don't pay to send the e-mail? Maybe it will make it there and maybe it won't. Depends on who did pay to get their mail sent. And how much.

No, all those miles of cable, all those routers and such are not cheap, but with several million customers paying in their monthly fees, I imagine they're not exactly hurting.

You liken it to water or power, but it's not anywhere near to being like that at all. There is a product with water and power. A finite product. One that must be moved through whatever means is unique to that particualr product. They charge everyone who is contracted with them the same amount though.

How about if they decide that whoever pays the most gets the water? That's the proposition here. If Dinkleburg across the street pays more than you, he gets to shower that day and you don't. If he pays more to the electric company, they route most of the power to him so your living room lights are dim at best while he's got searchlights blazing in the yard.

(Dinkleburg!)

The Net is not like water or energy. They're not moving a product. If anything you're renting a spot on the internet the same way you rent an apartment. You pay rent, they pay upkeep. If your air conditioner breaks, they fix it (mine exploded today. It was crazy. Then Juan the maintenance guy came and fixed it. For free. Because I pay rent).

If the ISP's were just looking to raise rates to cover costs, there would be some bitching, but it wouldn't be a real issue. That's not what is proposed though. Hell, the right to usage isn't even the question. The to right to equal usage is.

Man...that was longwinded. Ever feel like you wasted a perfectly good blog post in a comments section?

[claire]

Thanks for that link, Wil. I've been following it, but I was also having trouble finding the words to blog about it. Until now, that is.

[MistyB78]

Also, the net is used by everyone around the world, whos to say which companies have the right the regulate the internet? Will it be only the usa companies like AT&T and others to do this? Will it only be the usa government to regulate the net for users in other countries to direct them to usa sites? THIS IS JUST WRONG ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT.
FREEDOM FOR ALL. PERIOD.

[Carole]

Hi Will. Congratulations on your very interesting blog.

Is SAVE THE INTERNET in the US only? Or is it valid in other countries such as Canada?

Carole

[chosha]

"He who controls the information rules the world."

It's a terrible idea. Net neutrality is the only way that makes sense.

[Jim Lippard]

It's a pity that most of the advocates of net neutrality simply don't understand the current technology, law, or politics of how the Internet functions, and are making lots of erroneous claims based on that misinformation. I don't entirely side with the telcos--they are clearly after their own interests here--but their statements generally tend to have more factual accuracy around them (except when they try to pretend this is an issue of backbone capacity rather than last-mile capacity).

I've posted a number of entries at my blog trying to help sort out the facts. I think the basic principles of net neutrality in the FCC statement are quite reasonable, but I strongly disagree that the FCC is a good entity to start making detailed rules and regulations about what net neutrality means (these are the guys that regulate "indecent" content, remember!), and many of the things that net neutrality advocates say should be prohibited (like classes of service and tiered pricing) would have some major bad unintended consequences and hinder innovation.

Here's a post where I explain some of the issues, and here's one and here's another where I correct some misstatements by net neutrality advocates and point to accurate resources.

The number one study that anyone who wants to be informed on this issue should read is the Stifel/Nicolaus analyst report titled "Value Chain Tug of War." They are right on the money about the interplay between the various interests, what leverage the telcos actually have to do harm (two places: last mile and in Washington, D.C., which they exercise huge control over), and what are likely outcomes.

If this plays out through market competition, the telcos will lose again. If it plays out through government regulation, that's the telcos' home turf.