I rarely have a problem with paying for a privilege. In fact, I rather like tiered systems because at heart I am a snob and a classist and I am perfectly fine with ponying up a little dough to make my life easier or better. But I believe firmly that there are certain areas in which one cannot and should not be able to pay to make one’s life easier. The life of culture and the life of economics are not areas in which one should be concerned with equality (we are not all equally good artists or businesswomen) but the life of the citizen and politics is one in which equality is quite a concern and the situations in which one invokes one’s rights to equality as a citizen. It is in this situation that I find myself concerned and confused when it comes to net-neutrality.
Are we concerned about a situation in which we act as citizens, as artists, or as business people when it comes to Net Netrality?.
Now one has to ask or wonder where information, which is the essential nature of the Internet, falls in the three fold social order I have outlined. Information is increasingly becoming a commodity, will be a commodity, and in many senses should be a commodity. I make my living off of curating information, sifting through the debris of fashion and web 2.0 and crafting strategies, businesses, and editorial which then has added value to the consumers. In that sense, it is a commodity and I deserved to be paid for it. Of course, the Internet age says that information should be free but in reality it isn’t the information that is at issue but rather the infrastructure that gets you to the information. It is where information and infrastructure collide that we have a problem and it is that which makes net neutrality so tricky.
But infrastructure is a very hard thing to commodify, particularly when there are few enterprises to provide viable alternatives. In the case of roads for instance most would think it laughable to privatize the whole shebang and yet one of the best routes to the airports in Denver is a private road E-470 and I happily pay to get to my flight on time. But would this work if I did not have other viable, in this case, public alternatives? I have my doubts.
The idea of paying for access, i.e the position of the telecommunications companies, makes a good deal of sense to me. One should pay for the services one uses. But the Internet was not founded on a pay as you go or tiered system of information access. From its infancy sure you paid to get online but once there the network’s only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with faster or better service. This in turn let to a flowering of communication and business. Blogs and new media would not have the power they do today without it. Without net-neutrality we would not have as free a press as we do now. Coutorture would not have been able to exist if we had to pay to speed information flow and consumers to our sites. The anti-competitive behavior would have killed a viable start up like ours before we even got off the ground. As it is I already complain about our restricted ability to cover events in fashion, imagine if I had to pay to make sure people could even access our report.
In that sense, I support net neutrality heartily. Perhaps in the future we can pay and craft tiered systems in a flourishing of telecommunications start ups and options. But I have my doubts that something as close to its infancy as the Internet would benefit from being restricted in such a manner. Look at what happened to Netscape when Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer. Hell, browsers are still underdeveloped because of that one instance. Imagine then if certain browsers were privileged on the networks, imagine if certain sites were privileged, and imagine if certain viewpoints are privileged unless you are educated and rich enough to look elsewhere.
The rich heritage of entrepreneurship and democracy online which has pumped billions of dollars into our economy, indeed is one of America’s last great hopes for innovation and success would be doomed just to line the pockets of stumbling telecommunications giants for a few more years. We cannot allow this to happen. Even as a libertarian I believe in this case it is the government’s job to prevent networks from becoming “gatekeepers,” at very least until there are sufficient networks to allow everyone a fair shot at being accessed and at being accessible.
As Vint Cerf say “We risk losing the Internet as a catalyst for consumer choice, for economic growth, for technological innovation and for global competitiveness.”
Some believe passing net neutrality would stifle innovation but I believe it is the other way around. The beauty of technology is the low barriers to entry, making anyone smart enough and savvy enough to pursue a good idea capable of seeding a real business and pushing our economy forward. Lose that and God knows what will happen.
So I say to my Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (who happens to sit on the the House Committee on Small Business and the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises so she should have a vested interest in doing something about this beyond saving small businesses in her district like Coutorture) support net neutrality.
I have avoided saying much about the issue on Almost Girl since well it is a fashion blog and I am sure I am not as well versed on the issues as I should be but we only have 8 days left to make sure that the future of the Internet is not altered beyond recognition.
[...] Original post by Julie [...]
Internet and Media Productions Specialist, Alessandro Sorbello of New Realm Media http://www.newrealm.com.au interviewed Dr Vinton Cerf in Brisbane Australia on 8th March 2007, prior to his presentation of ‘Internet, Infinity and Beyond’ excerpts from Dr. Cerf’s presentation are available online at New Realm. Mr Sorbello http://www.AlessandroSorbello.com posed questions to Dr. Cerf relating to the development of the Internet and its role in today’s society and what we can expect in the future.
Dr. Cerf: So you can actually see some of the side effects. What happens when you get a billion people all connected together and able to interact? The first thing you notice is thanks to Tim Berners-Lee and the World Wide Web is an enormous avalanche of information coming into the network. The uses and consumers of information have now become the producers.
And so when you look at things like Wikipedia you discover that its content comes from anywhere in the world from anyone who has a piece of information that may be of use to others. What amazed me is the number of people who want to share their information and they are not looking for payment, they are simply looking for credit or they simply want to contribute. The interplanetary internet is set to change the face of communication not only on our planet, but also in the way we communicate with our technology in space.
Interesting article, but you could stand to define some terms a bit more explicitly. The question at hand is whether the internet is a market (best guided by private interest) or a commons (necessary to regulate through government intervention). The rhetoric and drive of the internet was founded on the internet-as-commons ideal, which is what you see Google vigorously defending in the media today. The irony is that Google readily takes this ideal to the bank (all your eyeballs are belong to us, lol!!!11$$11!!!$$$).
Your comparison to public/private transit is apt, but misleading. The U.S. interstate system was one the great triumphs of national governance. The internet never needed such a centralized push to get started, and I question whether government intervention at this stage is necessary. But what private transit *has* proved is that there is real benefit derived from allowing private interests to improve existing infrastructure. And in the case of the internet, this economic fact is even more pronounced: only those in Denver can make use of private interstate, but anyone in the world can make use of a private internet hub that offers value-add services.
Your comparison to Microsoft is also apt, but similarly misleading. Yes, Microsoft set innovation back 5-10 years with internet explorer, but I believe there is a readier comparison between MS and Google than MS and the Telecoms. There is real competition in the Telecom space, but Google is already planning on ways to use its monopoly on search to dominate the infrastructure business. Imagine a world where the internet is completely free, as long as you use Google, and as long as you ignore any sort of preferential treatment Google’s algorithms may be giving to certain parties behind the scenes.
All in all, Net Neutrality is nothing new, and I’m tired of hearing pundits confusing the issues with bullshit rhetoric. This is fundamentally about monopolistic practice, which is where the Government needs to keep watch over business for the public interest. This is also about free speech, which (unlike the “internet” and all its associated tubes and wires) is a public commons. But to lump the two into one package (either for/against net neutrality) is doing a great disservice.
I hope Congresswomen Velazquez is aware of the FTC’s recent report available here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/06/broadband.shtm
According to Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras, “This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access, which generally is moving toward more – not less – competition. In the absence of significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area.�
As the report notes, certain conduct and business arrangements that broadband providers may pursue, including data prioritization, exclusive deals, and vertical integration into online content and applications, can benefit consumers. “The primary reason for caution is simply that we do not know what the net effects of potential conduct by broadband providers will be on all consumers, including, among other things, the prices that consumers may pay for Internet access, the quality of Internet access and other services that will be offered, and the choices of content and applications that may be available to consumers in the marketplace.�
I work with the Hands Off the Internet and we want a strong internet to handle next generation technologies that net neutrality regulations will only stall.
Rereading this a day later, this writing is a bit more pro-capitalist than I had intended. Google maintains a great position to do some great things for the world, and has. I wish them the best of luck in this endeavor. On an emotional level, I trust them more than the telecoms.
But to expect government protection over their investments seems just silly. I believe this issue will play out over time in the next 20 years, with telecoms gradually receiving more and more power as Google reaches middle age and becomes less charitable. The cynical side of me believes that petitioning the government for legal protection of their assets is the beginning of the end as far as charity goes.