Net neutrality and freedom threatened by Internet Freedom Act

[7 Comment(s)]

By Tim Jones

Net neutrality is the most important technology issue in the public sphere today, and it's important to have a clear definition of the term.

"Net neutrality" refers to the structure of the Internet as it is now: All Web sites are loaded with the same speed, and Internet Service Providers charge one flat rate for access to the entire Internet with no monthly limit on usage. Recently, the FCC stated four guidelines for the continued existence of net neutrality, which say that consumers are allowed to access what they want on the Internet, use applications that make use of the Internet, use devices that make use of the Internet and are entitled to competition between ISPs.

Seems pretty harmless right? But it's this set of principles that has finally brought the issue to a head. The recent quasi-libertarian spark now found in the conservative side of American politics has seen the FCC's statement as an intrusion by the government into the Internet as a marketplace. "This would destroy this model of service that consumers have come to expect, that already works and works well," Congressman Phil Gingrey - R-GA - said of the FCC's net neutrality rules during a House hearing on the issue.

The reality of the situation is the exact opposite. The FCC's rules are simply guidelines to keep things exactly as they are. Sen. John McCain - R-AZ - recently introduced a bill ironically called the Internet Freedom Act of 2009, which would block the adoption of the FCC guidelines and, as McCain said, "keep the Internet free from government control and regulation." Which it would; however, it would also leave the future of the Internet in the hands of telecommunications companies and ISPs - McCain received $894,000 in contributions from a telecom lobby, more than any other senator - who are strongly against the FCC's rules as well.

The reason the telecoms are against net neutrality is because there is a considerable amount of money to be made in altering the current business model. Some companies have put forth the possibility of a tiered access system, where accessibility and speed of Internet traffic would be determined by the amount a content provider pays for it and with limits on data usage per month with overage charges like on your cell phone bill.

A tiered data system would work like this: The basic and least expensive level of Internet access would include access to Web sites like NBC.com or Facebook, Web sites from large corporations with plenty of money to pay the Internet premium. Further down the line and for more money, you would hit niche Web sites with a sizeable following, news aggregators Digg and Reddit or popular blogs like Slashdot. Presumably, the most expensive option would be an unlimited full access plan, allowing you to do what you do with the Internet right now but for much more money.

This sort of plan has far reaching consequences for people as private citizens and workers. First of all, it would give up what until now has been a fully free marketplace, creating massive barriers to entry. Nonprofit Web sites like the all-important Wikipedia would have to choose between giving a portion of their donations to telecoms to be on a higher tier or face being relegated to an unlimited usage only plan, which would carry huge consequences for nearly every student.

Fans of bandwidth-intensive online gaming, independent filmmakers and graphic designers would be forced to pay for unlimited bandwidth due to the sheer file size of their chosen media and the frequency with which they would have to use it.

Independent musicians and Web-comic artists would also be relegated to this fate, again lacking the funds to pay for access to higher levels. It also puts the power of censorship in the hands of ISPs, who would be free to refuse service to anyone, somewhat like the way Wal-Mart refuses to sell unedited versions of CDs branded with the Parental Advisory sticker.

Really, the entire issue boils down to letting the government reinforce the way things are right now or wrapping the Internet up in a box and giving it to the companies that provide access to it. The "freedom" in the Internet Freedom Act is apparently the freedom to have our arms twisted by corporations into paying much more for something that has become a daily necessity.

Louisiana Senator David Vitter has co-sponsored a piece of legislation unrelated to McCain's bill that would also block net neutrality. Mary Landrieu has taken no stated action on issue.

Originally Published: Issue 823 - November 11, 2009

Share on Facebook

Back to the top