Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. However, activists fear that telecom companies may also use this power to discriminate between traffic types, charging tolls on content from some content providers (i.e. websites, services, protocols), particularly competitors. The worry is that failure to pay the tolls would result in poor service or no service for certain websites or certain types of applications - essentially ending online democracy.
The fear of corporations taking over the Internet, removing all democratic aspects, might sound a bit ridiculous, but it’s a real threat. It happened to radio and TV, and right now there are lawsuits going on that may change the way we use the Internet forever. Basically, the Internet could become a one-directional medium if phone companies gain full control of Internet services. This would change everything that we have come to know and love about the Internet.
The Internet is essentially the first and only truly democratic medium. If we were to lose this, I don’t know what would happen. It scares me to no end. Check out this video by Brooklyn-based filmmaker Arin Crumley (co-director of Four Eyed Monsters, which is a great film about the power of digital media) on the potential future of the Internet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z57y_R2ukcY
Derick Vollrath @ Sun, 02/25/2007 - 6:32pm
The idea of "corporations taking over the internet, removing all democratic aspects," is a little bit simplistic. There are two sides to this coin - it's also a debate of free markets versus government regulation.
The analogy to Radio and TV is a tad inaccurate, as TV and Radio broadcast on a limited range of frequencies. There can only be so many (broadcast) television and radio stations. It is upon these grounds that regulation is permitted (where it would otherwise very obviously clash with the first amendment and property rights). The internet, on the other hand, is completely different, much more akin to print (an unregulated medium) than broadcast. Sites are stored on servers and information is conveyed to users like you and me through a network of cables, all of it owned by - you guessed it - large corporations.
To impose regulation of the type "net neutrality" advocates are suggesting would set a dangerous precedent for government regulation of speech and the erosion of property rights. When you upload a video to YouTube's servers, why shouldn't you have to pay for the space your content occupies? Why shouldn't you have to pay for the bandwidth you occupy on Time Warner's cable network in doing so?
In addition there are serious economic and practical reasons for not establishing "net neutrality" regulations. If corporations like AT&T and Verizon fail to make profits, they can fold and then there is no internet. If people (and vicariously corporations) are not allowed to enjoy the profits of their efforts (ie, collecting the profit margins between the cost and sale of call waiting as referenced in the video) then innovation stagnates (perhaps something better than the internet awaits?).
Assuming AT&T and Verizon, etc. does create barriers to entry in the online media world, this also might not be a bad thing. Niche media has a tendency to fragment a society, and can cause serious cleavages in the long term. As people tune out CNN and tune into things like Little Green Footballs, Pandagon, and DailyKos, they lose a common cultural reference. This can have serious impact on societal continuity in the long wrong (see my former post on Dylan Avery and Loose Change).
Ultimately however, the nightmare scenarios "net neutrality" advocates fear will never come into fruition, as no one in their right mind would stay with a company once it starts charging users the way they predict. Users will leave for another company with a more "democratic" system. Thus the wheels of the free market go on turning.
Honestly, I'm still not sure where I fall down on this debate. I value the fact that I can post online like this, and believe strongly in the principles behind free speech. But on the other hand there are serious questions to think about:
1) does disaggregated media harm society?
2) Is government regulation inherently harmful to freedom of speech?
3) Are there alternative methods of dealing with the threats of ownership controls on the internet? Does the free market and current anti-trust legislation solve this problem already?
etc.
Regardless of where you fall on the debate, certainly you can recognize that it's much too important an issue for such blatantly political language as "net neutrality," and such hackneyed strawman formulations as "Big Corporate Profits vs. Democracy and the Little Guy" storytelling devices.