Network Neutrality-What is it and why do we want it?

In short, a policy of network neutrality supports freedom of the individual to see and hear and send any information he or she wants.  It allows the full diversity of voices to flourish.

Why do we need to adopt a policy of network neutrality? 

When the Internet started, people reached it over their telephone lines.  Remember from movies and TV shows when people put their telephones into a modem and listened to those screeches and whistles to connect to the Internet?  Since almost the beginning of telephones, laws and regulations had prevented telephone companies from controlling the conversations over the telephone lines.  So, for example, you could call your mother and tell her, "AT&T's prices are too high."  Or call your friend and criticize the Iraq war.  Or call the city and complain about the mayor.  It didn't matter whether the telephone company (or other powerful people) liked what you said or not.  The same was true for the Internet.  Over time, the Internet evolved from emails and text only bulletin boards to the web, YouTube videos and Facebook.  Now the Internet is a competitor to television and all other kinds of communication.  And for most of that time, the company that owned the wires was not allowed to control what you looked at or saw on the Internet.  It didn't matter who you were – anyone can get a web site, or an email account and say anything they want, for the whole world to see.

Television and cable companies, on the other hand, started using a different model, and this means that television and cable has never been as open and diverse as the Internet.  Television and radio stations and cable companies were not prevented from controlling content—they were in charge of it!  The audience sees what a small handful of people think you should see, and nothing else.  Because of this, traditional media suffers from many flaws.  It stereotypes almost everyone; it leaves out important parts of our national conversation.  And if you don't like what you see on TV, you can't start your own channel.  At best you can make an appointment with the station manager to complain, but it is very hard to get a wide range of opinions on television.

So, the Internet was free and open, and television, radio and cable were tightly controlled.  But, unfortunately, something pretty bad started to happen.  As the Internet became more important, other companies besides telephone companies began to offer Internet access.  Cable companies developed cable modems.  Cable companies did not want to give up the power they had over their wires.  They wanted the freedom to manage their networks to control what information goes over their lines just as they did for television.  There was no rule or law to protect the American public from out-and-out bias or sabotage by cable companies.  So  consumer groups and public interest advocates asked the FCC to make cable companies comply with the same rules as telephone companies when they were offering Internet access.  The FCC refused.  In fact, the FCC did something even worse.  It started allowing the telephone companies the same right to control content over its wires too! 

Billions of dollars are at stake, as is the very lifeblood of conversation in America.  Pretty soon, almost all information will travel over the Internet, even if it is video that you watch on your television, or a telephone call with your mom.   We are almost to that point already.  And individual Internet users have no protection if a company does not like the content they want to publish or to read. 

But will telephone companies and cable companies really interfere with our Internet access?  Is there a real danger?  In fact, there is a real danger.  Cable companies and telephone companies could make a lot of money if they could ensure certain content was better.  How much would ABC pay to be sure American Idol looked good on people's computers?  Or how important would it be to Dominoes that their web site was faster and better than Pizza Hut's?  Some of the network management is necessary—technical protocols that keep things running smoothly.  But some of the management is very worrisome.  The worst part about the danger is that it is very hard to know whether the telephone or cable companies are influencing content.  The management happens behind closed doors—why is a particular web site slow?  Why does a particular application not work at home when it works well for your friend?  Someone has to be pretty tech savvy to suspect discrimination in the technical protocols of your Internet access. 

There are a few serious instances of discrimination that have already come to light, even though it is very hard to track down:

• Comcast slowed down transmission of the Bible.  Specifically, many people use a piece of software called BitTorrent to transmit high volumes of information.  Comcast was disconnecting people who used BitTorrent at certain times.  The Associated Press tested Comcast by trying to transmit the Bible and Comcast got caught.  Comcast argues that it should have a right to manage how people use certain programs on its network. 
  Source >>
• Verizon wireless refused political activists the right to use its wireless texting service. NARAL sought to sign up for a program that allows people to sign up for text messages from NARAL.  Verizon didn't want to sell its service to NARAL group because it thought the messages would be controversial, even though subscribers must choose to receive content from NARAL. 
  Source >>
• AT&T webcast a concert by Pearl Jam on its Blue Room web site.  But parts of lead singer Eddie Vedder's lyrics, in which he improvised criticism of George Bush, were bleeped out.  Although AT&T said the political speech was inadvertently censored, the incident demonstrates the power of technology to limit speech. 
  Source >>
• A small telephone company in North Carolina, Madison River, blocked their DSL customers from using Vonage voice over Internet service—one of their competitors.  Fortunately, at the time, the telephone companies were still subject to rules the prohibited discrimination, and the FCC was able to quickly stepped and fine the company.
  Source >>

What can we do about this?  There are groups and political leaders in Washington fighting to be sure that there are basic protections for all of us on the Internet.