Saturday, May 12, 2007
Successful economic eras can usually be traced back to a technology breakthrough and the public policy decisions made to support it.
The steam engine was invented, and over time the railroad came into being. A decision to standardize the width of train tracks was the public policy decision that allowed this technology to flourish, and with it the industrial revolution.
By the early 20th century, it became clear that the telephone was more than just a novelty that allowed one to chat with a neighbor. Setting the goal of universal service, making sure every American had access to a phone, is the policy initiative that unleashed the full power of this invention.
In the years leading up to and during the early 21st century, the Internet has emerged as a technological development on par with the creation of the railroad or telephone. And like those inventions, the impact of the Internet on our economy -- and, in this case, on our ability to exercise our free-speech rights -- has been aided by sensible public policy choices.
Setting the Internet up as a resource available to all on the same, low-cost terms has made it an unprecedented innovation tool. It has also allowed the Internet to become the place where just about anybody can start a business or make their voice and views available to the world.
Now, however, there are forces working to undo the sensible and essential rules that govern the use of the Internet. Some -- though not all -- Internet service providers want the ability to create two standards for Internet transmission.
MAKING MONEY TALK ON THE WEB
The providers lobbying for change want to be able to create a premium Internet transmission service. This would allow them to charge large Web sites extra for having their data transmitted in the fastest possible way.
For consumers, this would mean that Web sites that make a lot of money or have a lot of financial backing would load noticeably faster on their computers than other Web sites. So, for example, Home Depot's site might come up on your screen pretty fast. But the Web site created by the local hardware store would load more slowly.
It would mean that the Web sites of big media companies (perhaps including this newspaper) would load quickly, allowing consumers to see their content with great ease. But the local blogger or alternative weekly might not be on the fast lane. Consumers would have a harder time getting their information from alternative sources.
The impact of this change could have a devastating effect on innovation.
Many of the Web's most successful businesses began as small start-ups that were able to use the Internet's wide-open access to reach new, underserved markets. By relegating future start-ups to the slow lane, the next bright idea might not get the chance to reach a critical mass of customers.
The fast-lane/slow-lane configuration could also undermine the ability of the Web to give voice to people and groups previously unable to get their message out.
What many in the blogosphere call the "mainstream media" could again gain control of the information pipeline. That's not good for anyone, including this newspaper and other "mainstream" sources of information.
As much as the Internet is a challenge to traditional media, it is also engaging unprecedented numbers of people in our public debate. That's good for democracy and, over the longterm, it's good for anyone in the business of providing a forum for ideas and a source of news and information.
The shorthand label given this issue in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere is "network neutrality." Because of how communications law is written, it is a federal issue. Despite that, there's been a bill introduced in Augusta seeking to ban the fast-lane/slow-lane approach to Internet service in Maine.
To the degree that debating the issue in the State House raises awareness, it's a worthwhile proposition. But it's likely that federal law will dictate the terms of net neutrality in Maine and elsewhere.
THE BATTLE'S IN WASHINGTON
In the last Congress, a proposal to allow for the creation of a fast-lane/slow-lane Internet was tucked into a larger communications reform package. That bill had some worthwhile provisions, including new rules that would make it easier for phone companies like Verizon to compete directly with cable companies like Time-Warner.
Industry lobbyists said the extra profits generated from a two-tier Internet would make up for income lost to more robust competition and would actually lower the cost of Internet service to consumers by giving Internet service providers a new source of revenue.
Even if it's true that getting rid of net neutrality would bring consumers cheaper Internet service, the cost to the overall economy in lost innovation would hardly make the change worthwhile.
Besides, the surest way to give consumers the best price is to make it possible for multiple players to package and offer local and national television content, high-speed Internet, phone and cell-phone services. As we move in that direction, we'll also need a system for raising money to provide incentives to providers to serve rural areas.
All that can be accomplished without undermining the principle that the Internet should serve all comers on an equal basis.
Reader comments
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
The FCC enforced net neutrality provisions since the inception of the net. The let their rule expire last year.
The telecoms haven't changed anything yet, because they want things to quiet down before they start messing with things.
So this is NOT new regulation at all.
If, like Ted Hunter, you like the innovation you have seen online, it is THANKS to net neutrality.
The telecom firms don't operate in a free market. They have monopoly powers (which WE grant them via franchise agreements), they get huge government subsidies, and we give them free access to our rights of way. However, the web itself has been the MOST FREE MARKET we have ever seen. It's the big telecoms, propped up by the government that want to mess that up. Net neutrality would prevent them from doing so.
report abuse
What is truly at stake here is opening the door for federal and state regulation of the internet piplines. Once the genie is out of the bottle is won't be going back inside. Net Beutrality, while it "sounds" like the right thing to do will discourage and delay new technologies such as VioP and digital delivery mediums, and technologies yet to be discovered and created.
The "real" threat to citizens is the content filtering of the major search engines and ISPs to limit and contol what is available through our internet access.
The true "product" of the internet is availability of information and net neutrality does not address the censorship of internet availability, it only raises risks of investment for technology companies who would otherwise fund the development of additional services and products.
As a former Director at CompTIA, guest columnist at CRN Magazine, and working in the IT industry 20 years my opinion is the internet has been developing just fines as it is... Not perfect and not always the way I would like, but it is growing and devoping in a rapid manner and government regulation of a worldwide product is the equivalent of us trying legislate morality standards in China... It simply isn't going to work and will open the door for more politicians and pundits to meddle with technologies they largely know nothing about in the hopes of making some political hay so they can continue to earn a living at taxpayer expense while ignoring real issues that concern their constituents.report abuse
Oh, So now they want socialized internet access! Just add it onto the application for food stamps for Pete's sake. Would you like your DHHS Internet Access Debit Card bundled with telephone and cable TV? Check here. report abuse
Show all 5 comments
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.