|
 Graphic by Justin Hemlepp/TheSequitur.com with network map from Matt Britt/Wikipedia
Sept. 19, 2007
This month the Department of Justice urged the FCC not to adopt regulations that would protect “net neutrality.” To recap, net neutrality is the concept that on a given network -- in this case the Internet -- all traffic is given the same priority, e.g. your aunt Tillie's funny story e-mail gets passed along network routers with the same priority as congressional e-mails. We say that’s a good thing.
Giving any entity the power to grade the importance of information is too great a risk to democracy and anti-trust laws. Telecom companies see it differently -- they say that content providers (e.g. online stores, news sources and entertainment outlets) are making billions while telecoms are left holding the dumb pipe and only get to charge monthly internet access fees to millions of subscribers. They say they can provide better content; they also want to reserve their right to, say, deliver their version of YouTube at better and more consistent speeds than the original YouTube.
But why does the Justice Department care one whit about net neutrality? The department has been very friendly to telecoms of late. It recently approved the AT&T merger with Bell South. If that does not invoke an immediate eyebrow raise, we suggest you review your history of “Ma Bell” and her offspring, the “Baby Bells.” In addition, the Bush administration is trying to secure immunity for the telecoms that cooperated in the wiretapping of U.S. citizens – a currently controversial constitutional topic.
Giving any entity the power to grade the importance of information is too great a risk to democracy ...Justice compared a tiered Internet scheme to different rates of the United States Postal Service. But that is a disingenuous analogy; we certainly do not want the postman opening our mail to see which letters should be delivered first. AT&T has demonstrated the "Deep Packet Inspection" they would use to sort traffic, and it is nothing like different postal rates. Indeed, we already have the choice of dial-up, DSL, cable, satellite, wireless and in some cases fiber optic ISP services.
At the heart of the problem is what we define the Internet as. The telecoms and Justice Department see it as a marketplace and emphasize improving quality for consumers, which by the way is corporate speak for "what's the most efficient way to fleece these hayseeds." We see the Internet as - among other things - technology's gift to free speech, the promise that everyone can have their 15 pages of fame. We have every right – and, in-fact, the duty – to be overprotective of that gift.
Dwayne Robinson abstains from all staff editorials.
|
Conclusions 
