When I first learned about the Internet, one of the most difficult concepts to grasp was that it did not belong to anyone. There was no central authority managing the network. No one owned or controlled it. Not even Bill Gates. And because it belonged to no one, it belonged to everyone, and millions of websites flourished, the little ones growing alongside the giants. In this hothouse environment, small, nimble companies quickly became giants in their own right to challenge traditional Old World corporations.
This egalitarian approach also gave rise to an unprecedented exercise in free expression, in which anyone could make their voices heard by thousands or even millions by creating a blog and going online.
All of that is going to change, if the big American airlines have their way.
In the United States, the big telecommunications carriers AT&T, Verizon and Comcast want to start charging big “blue-chip” online companies like Yahoo, Google, eBay and Amazon more money for a premium service that will ensure their pages reach to you. faster. On the other hand, smaller businesses and individual bloggers who can’t afford the premium service will have to gamble with the regular service and hope that visitors can find their way to their websites.
This pay-to-play approach would be akin to operators dividing the internet into business and economy class, with those who can afford it getting better food and service, more comfortable seats and all the perks, and those who can’t squeeze themselves. horrible seating and food.
The principle under attack is called network neutrality and is based on the notion that the network does not care what kind of bits are carried or who sends them; it will move them to their destination through its broadband pipelines with the same speed and efficiency, without discrimination.
The issue is particularly hot in the United States, where carriers say a tiered service would allow them to finance new broadband investments, while critics of such an approach are lobbying the US Congress to pass laws to protect net neutrality.
Robert Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and a former secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, disagrees.
“Pipe companies say that unless they can start charging, they won’t be able to invest in the next generation of networks,” he says. “Well, that’s ridiculous. They’re already making a lot of money off of Internet-connected consumers. They just think they can make more money by charging the big content providers for the best service.”
Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, has also spoken out in favor of net neutrality and against the idea that “if I want to watch a TV station over the Internet, that TV station He must have paid to pass me on.”
The forces lining up on both sides of the debate are formidable.
Aligned with the giant carriers are their big network equipment providers like 3M, Cisco, Corning, and Qualcomm. Cable companies also oppose legislation to ensure net neutrality.
Pitting against these companies are the big online players, Microsoft and the Save the Internet Coalition (http://www.savetheinternet.com), which brings together more than 700 organizations, from the leftist movement Moveon.org to the movement of right Gun Owners of America.
For now, as Berners-Lee notes, net neutrality is a problem unique to the United States. But the United States is such a dominant force on the Internet that what happens there will clearly have an impact elsewhere. For that reason alone, those of us who care about keeping the Internet an open marketplace for ideas should support net neutrality and hope the battle is won in the United States.
