Here in Washington, you know something is askew when such disparate groups as Moveon.Org and the Christian Coalition can be seen lying in the same political bed. Of course, this may very well be the signal we need to notice an important cause when we see one.
Such is the case in the debate over “Net neutrality,” which has united groups from across the political spectrum and which the Senate takes up today when it debates whether to renew the 1996 telecommunications law. Net neutrality — a concept gleaned from telecommunication rules laid out in 1934 that has been applied, thus far, to the Internet — assures that Internet providers cannot give special treatment to Web sites that pay for quicker access totheir Web sites (telecommunication companies currently make money by charging individuals and business, not Web sites). If Congress doesn’t require major cable and telephone companies that control access to the Internet to follow “Net neutrality,” here’s what could very well take place: The New York Times pays Verizon enough money to assure that its Web site loads more quickly than the Wall Street Journal. Or Buy.com could pay to have their products load more quickly than the products might over at Amazon.com. Or political candidates could buy expedited access to their Web site and materials. And it doesn’t take a Bill Gates to figure out how this could not only fundamentally manipulate consumer behavior and attitudes, but suppress an open and democratic flow of information as well.
Failure to assure Net neutrality would also go a long way toward stifling the innovation that has made the Internet a frontier for new, advanced ideas. Could a Web site like PayPal have ever taken off if it didn’t already have the venture capital needed to pay the huge fees other, larger companies were doling out to get a faster, more user-friendly Web site? Or what about MySpace? Or YouTube? Or any other starter Web site that depends on the grassroots to make it successful? When the barriers to entry are too high, too burdensome and too suffocating, the Internet as a whole suffers.
But it’s not just the little guys — and consumers — that will get hurt, which explains why such biggies as Google, Microsoft and eBay have come out in favor of net neutrality. They — understandably — don’t want to have to pay for the access they already enjoy.
The argument posited by those resisting Net neutrality is that the monies gained from these preferential access packages would help fund improvements and enhancements in the Internet’s infrastructure. It’s true that important network upgrades are needed to prevent the inevitable congestion that larger, faster data feeds create, butwhy not just uniformly increase fees for users and Web sites instead? Otherwise, the nature of the World Wide Web would be irreparably harmed in the process of trying to enhance the very pipes and wires that make it possible.
This is no way to run an Internet, which is exactly what Congress needs to learn: Keep its hands off the Internet and not try and run it at all.
