Since its inception, the Internet has represented the world’s largest sandbox in which all people can play, whether they’re building 10-story castles or mud pies. It reflects the real meaning of freedom of speech and sets up a level playing field.
Not only is it an unrestricted canvas upon which ideas can flourish, but whether you are an individual or a huge conglomerate, all creativity has equal footing. If you have a great blog with engaging content, you could generate more traffic than The New York Times. Or maybe you’re a college kid with an app that’s as creative and popular as Facebook. The potential is unlimited for anyone.
Related: Read Rick Gilman's October column, "Power to the people."
This freedom of the web, known as "net neutrality," has been the hue and cry for a lot of people, because the Internet is still in its infancy and now is the time when policies need to ensure the future. But for many more, the concept of net neutrality is a complex one. Like all great issues, there are passionate advocates on both sides of the fence.
Recently, net neutrality has come under attack from two different camps—those corporations that control the vast majority of the content, and the service companies that provide the conduits for delivering content. How this current conflict is resolved will likely determine the Internet’s fate and how we all interface with it for years to come.
The story begins with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), established in 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission. It was charged with regulating "all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum [including radio and television broadcasting], and all interstate telecommunications [wire, satellite and cable] as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States."
The FCC’s responsibilities include auctioning off certain bandwidths to various companies or industries. As an example, think of cordless phones that once ran exclusively on a 2.4 MHz bandwidth until the FCC opened up the 5.8 MHz band. As more wireless devices are created, the more crowded a particular frequency becomes, hence the need to broaden the conduit.
WiFi is part of that same challenge, and right now everyone has equal access to the same "pipe." Net neutrality advocates want to keep it that way. They want everyone to have equal access to all legal content. Advocates on the other side believe that what they suggest won’t change the experience of the average person, but rather would offer a premium Internet with super- fast access to those that can afford it. And while advocates agree with the tenets of net neutrality, they want the tenets applied to wired networks only, leaving the wireless network up for grabs.
The FCC is central to this issue because of its regulatory role as well as it being the linchpin of two major stories. The first is the scheduled merger of Comcast, the country’s largest provider of Internet and phone services, with NBC Universal, one of the world’s leading media and entertainment companies. Comcast agreed to purchase a 51 percent share of NBC Universal last December, but the deal hasn’t cleared regulatory hurdles. The second considers discussions between two groups, content developers and Internet service providers, the most watched of them being Google and Verizon.
For many years, the FCC oversaw the proposed purchases by media companies of other media outlets. The main purpose of that review process was to prevent the development of market monopolies. For instance, a single corporation was prevented from buying radio and television stations and newspapers from the same market; it would be seen as being anticompetitive.
Four freedoms
A court ruling on the Comcast/NBC Universal decision by the FCC essentially stated that the FCC lacked the authority and jurisdiction over broadband and therefore couldn’t uphold any net neutrality freedoms. This decision pulled the rug out from under the agency’s commitment to a National Broadband Plan, which would have increased the definition of net neutrality and the "Four Freedoms" that had been established in 2003/04 by the former FCC chairman Michael Powell.
The original "Four Freedoms" were:
-
Freedom to access content: Consumers should have access to their choice of legal content
-
Freedom to use applications: Consumers should be able to run applications of their choice
-
Freedom to attach personal devices: Consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to the connection in their homes
-
Freedom to obtain service plan information: Consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans.
The agency had hoped to broaden the definition by proposing two more principles, which would formalize nondiscrimination, the fundamental core of net neutrality, and extend the principles to include wireless networks. This goal put the FCC in direct opposition to the Google-Verizon proposal, which wanted wired and wireless networks treated differently.
However, as long as the FCC’s authority is in question, it will never be able to enforce its perspective over the market. A way around this problem is a proposal that would reclassify broadband Internet service under the Communications Act from what it is currently designated as an "information service" which is a softly regulated designation, to a "telecommunications service" which, like phone service, is ruled by a stricter set of regulatory standards.
The underlying goal of the effort by the FCC is not to regulate prices or hamstring service providers by making the regulations onerous, but rather to ensure broadband privacy and to guarantee equal access for everyone.
The issue here boils down to the idea that the big conglomerates that provide access to the Internet want to construct what could be called a parallel superhighway that runs more like the German Autobahn, super fast and super smooth. As a result, only those willing and able to pay high fees will be able to take that road. The rest of us will be left to motor along at 55 mph, sometimes finding ourselves stuck in expected congestion.
So why should you care? Your website gets pretty good traffic. Your Facebook page is "liked" by lots of people and your blog, while it may not get a lot of comments, seems to have a good number of readers. Everything is okay, right?
Well, it might be okay for now, but think about what might happen if this bifurcation of the Internet happens as some would like. If the Googles and Verizons of the world have their way, it might result in you operating on one Internet while your competitors speed down another.
Can you imagine what it would be like if your competitors operate on an Internet 10 times faster than yours? All the while, small independent agents are stuck communicating on the regular Internet that would be equivalent to a country road. It would mean that access to your website could be more difficult and your agency operates at a much slower speed while the direct writers or captive agency companies are gliding along without any interruptions.
From the start of the Internet, one of its greatest strengths was the fact that it was open to everyone and everyone was treated equally. This struggle over net neutrality can potentially change the very nature of the platform. Don’t let them put speed bumps on the superhighway.
The world is flat?
One of the conundrums I find to this whole discussion is the idea that a single nation believes it can or should regulate an environment that is not bounded by national borders. Unfortunately, there are some key examples of countries that lock out certain search engines or limit access to particular content.
Censorship of the Internet within the People’s Republic of China is such an example and one that leaves little recourse for its population, although there are people who find their way around the laws, usually paying the high consequences along the way for committing a "criminal act."
While usage of the Internet by country shows that China, by the very nature of its size, is No. 1 in the list of highest number of users, its percentage of penetration is at 31.6 percent; the U.S. has a 77.3 percent penetration, fifth behind Canada (77.7 percent), Germany (78.2 percent), South Korea (81.1 percent) and the United Kingdom (82.5 percent).
As Internet usage continues to grow around the world and people begin leveraging their collective power (see last month’s column, "Power to the People"), international policies will have to be established for operating in this network in lieu of individual nations. It is my hope that when that day comes, we will all be on an equal footing, with the Internet a ubiquitous part of everyone’s life.