FREEDOM!*

Thanks to Fab New Employer, who has actually heard of the this neat concept called "support your staffers' professional development," I’ve had the opportunity to attend the annual NTEN conference this week. Of the sessions I’ve attended, one of the most compelling was a panel on net neutrality, consisting of representatives from Moveon.org, the Free Press, the Consumer’s Union, and one poor schmoe from Verizon (had to admire his bravery, since he must’ve realized he was walking into the proverbial lion’s den).

For those of you who are just joining us, a little background:

Way back in the stone ages (actual time: about 15 years ago) when DARPA first released ARPANet to the public and the Internet was born (thanks in part to Al Gore, who was an early and passionate supporter of funding for this crazy idea), we all accessed this wonderful “series of tubes” over phone lines. Ah, the screechy mating call of the modern modem.

Because of this, the Internet was governed by the rules that govern phone lines, one of which ensures non-discrimination based on content or carrier. So if Ma Bell ran the phone lines, and I have MCI and you have Verizon, AT&T can’t refuse to put my call to you through, or slow it down, or mess with the signal so that it comes through delayed or distorted.

Stay with me here. All was well in Netland until cable companies started offering service and the major providers started running FIOS. Cable companies are governed by different rules than phone companies (anyone who gets a cable bill knows they’re allowed to charge different prices for access to different content and to deny access to some content all together), and running all that fiber was expensive, damn it, and we telecom companies want to get PAID.

Next thing you know, attorneys are making arguments before SCOTUS. You can read the full ruling if you have lots of time on your hands, but the point is that SCOTUS admitted that, while ending the historical neutrality in the treatment of content could have serious negative effects on the Internet, based on the current laws, they had to rule in favor of allowing the providers to charge more for differential access, starting in August 2005. SCOTUS also encouraged Congress to consider passing new legislation to address this issue.

”So what?” you think. “I know I pay more for broadband than my moms, who insists on sticking with her old dial-up account. What’s the problem?” The telecoms aren’t looking to charge consumers extra. That’s already legal. Net neutrality opponents want to charge extra to content providers to ensure that their content gets preferential treatment – their pages load more quickly, their high-bandwidth applications (voice, video) work without delays and hiccups, etc.

“OK, so Verizon DSL loads Yahoo! faster than Google because Yahoo! paid them a big pile of cash. I’ll just switch to Earthlink.” Yeah, that won’t help you. First of all, raise your hand if there are 10 different providers in your ‘hood. 5? More than 3?

...............

Mmm-hmmm. Secondly, most of those providers do not in fact own the lines, and that’s where this battle is taking place. To quote Ed Whitacre, CEO of SBC:

“Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?”

Net neutrality opponents claim that they have to operate in an unregulated environment where they can recoup the costs of running all that FIOS or Wall Street won’t continue to provide investment capital. RIIIIIIGHT. Wall Street’s going to quit investing in the Internet. Because, as my spouse, The Big Geek, is so fond of remarking: “The Internet? Pffft. It’s a fad.” (hope the sarcasm translated there) Sorry. Not buying it.

They’d also like you to believe that this is about whether Amazon.com loads 2 seconds faster – or slower – than Borders.com. It’s not about Amazon versus Borders. You know what? They’ll both find a way to pay for fast access to their publics. So will Foxnews.com. You know who won’t? Hecate. Atrios. Daily Kos. Skype. YouTube.

The Internet, in its relatively brief lifespan, has been a powerful force for democracy, even anarchy (in the good way, not the setting fire to public buildings way). Meanwhile, EVERY OTHER FORM OF MEDIA has witnessed dramatic increases in ownership consolidation. Do you really want to live in a world where Rupert Murdoch-owned outlets are your only source of news? Me either.

So what can you do?

1. Support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, sponsored by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Go contact your Senators now. I’ll wait…
2. Join Save the Internet.
3. Stay informed about what’s going on.

Freedom of expression is a terrible thing to waste.

*NB – you have to use your SexyCrazyBraveheart Mel voice, not your WingnutAntiSemiticOpusDeiDrunk Mel voice, or it doesn’t sound right.