| There is a war coming, and with the exception of some
obscure blogs and the occasional blip on the radar screen
of the mainstream media, surprisingly few people know
about it. Two powerful
forces, each with very different vested interests, are about
enter into a massive struggle to decide the fate of the Internet.
The coming battle is a product of the Internet growing from
being used primarily for low-bandwidth functions like email
and web surfing, to include a great deal of high-bandwidth
functions like watching streaming video, playing video games
and VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol). The problem created
by this increased usage of bandwidth is the ensuing argument
over who will pay for it all. Those currently bearing the
burden of carrying all of this data are the telecommunications
companies like AT&T and Verizon.
The telecommunications companies argue that it is unfair
that a company like Google or Yahoo can pay a fee to connect
their servers to the Internet but are then able to offer
features that take up enormous amounts of bandwidth for no
extra charge. Consequently the telecommunications companies
are forced to foot the bill and see no remuneration for all
of the wire they have laid out to allow for the increased
data flow.
So who should pay for all of the wire required to support
this new high-volume Internet? The telephone companies are
looking at two different sources for compensation. The first
is you, the user; with a two-tier system that would require
additional payments to have access to things like VoIP and
streaming video. The other possibility is that bandwidth
will be partitioned out to websites based on how much they
pay. This would mean the end of what is called “network
neutrality.”
Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users
should be able to access any web content they choose and
use any applications they choose, without restrictions or
limitations imposed by their Internet service providers (ISPs).
What ISPs like AT&T and Verizon would like to do is charge
websites for the amount of bandwidth they use. The result
would mean slower and possibly no access to the websites
that can’t afford to pay for the premium bandwidth.
According to the website www.commoncause.org examples of
how this type of restricted access might affect your Internet
experience are:
• Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A
provider could make sure that preferred content or applications
load faster and more efficiently while competing services
are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered
Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a
slow lane for everyone else.
• Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its
own web content and services by featuring prominent menus,
program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically
excluding competing content.
•
Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial
sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector
of the online community in terms of services offered, and
would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment
where they have to pay for better service.
•
Restricting Internet Telephone: Services that allow you to
make low-cost, long-distance telephone calls using a high-speed
Internet connection (sometimes called VoIP, or Voice over
Internet Protocol) are becoming more and more popular. But
traditional phone companies who are now getting into the
Internet business don't want to lose their customers to Internet
phone companies like Vonage and Skype. However, there is
nothing stopping them from blocking their competition from
using their network.
This principle of network neutrality is what is being fiercely
defended by various public interest groups (along with Google
and Yahoo) who have been lobbying the US congress and Federal
Communications Commission to write the concept of "network
neutrality" into law. Meanwhile the telecommunications
giants are lobbying just as hard, arguing that they need
new ways to pay for the faster and better communications
networks that are being demanded.
While the telecommunications companies have a strong argument
that they are shouldering costs and providing services for
which they are not compensated, the advocates of a free Internet
also make good points about the value of network neutrality.
It is appropriate then that this battle take place in America
since the debate could be seen as a conflict between two
very American ideals: Capitalism and Liberty. The Internet
is only big enough for one of them. Which will it be?
Do you have a comment or feedback on
this article? Email
us and let us know what you think.
|
