Net neutrality: Why you should give a damn
This Web only Speakout has not been edited.
Michael Janover
Published August 16, 2008 at 6 a.m.
OK, I'm old. I was around when Channel 2 went on the air in Denver in the early 50's and brought us Blinky the Clown. It was exciting. Television. In Colorado!
In the mid-60s, cable TV and the dish staked their claims, and folks in the mountains could finally see Star Trek and Mary Tyler Moore. A whole new world was opening, no longer limited by four or five basic channels. Cable and satellite promised real choice. Hundreds of channels! Wow! You could see anything!
So what happened to all the choices?
Why is it that TV and the movies are always the same old, same old?
For one thing, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made it possible to merge control of the television and film industries into fewer and fewer networks. What started out as infinite possibilities gradually became three super networks. These entities gobbled up the studio system and the cable channels. Creative decisions were gradually assumed by corporate boards that prefer safe, tested and bland to innovative, daring and dramatic. It's one of the reasons hard news became infotainment, and rich, life-changing drama is now "reality" programming.
Too much creative control is in the hands of too few people who aren't creative.
The beginning of the 80s was the start of the Computer Age. I went out and bought a Kaypro, a clunky box, with black screen and glowing green text. It was great. Totally cutting edge.
Computers became more wonderful with color graphics and the mouse thingy, but the most amazing and subversive change was INTERNET. In a few short years, it turned the planet into one big neighborhood; and with broadband access, it also offered interactivity.
We are no longer simple couch potatoes in front of the living room TV. Today, we're interactive potatoes and use computers to communicate, shop, or read and comment about everything from elections to Dancing With the Stars. We converse with people around the country and world as if they lived across the street. How quaint and microscopic those "hundreds of channels" seem now.
Blogs and YouTube are the new political language. They were vital in the Writer's Guild's recent successful struggle with management - the very people who own the mainstream media. Truth is, the Internet does more to democratize the world than any of the wars currently being waged. It truly offers an infinity of choices that TV can't deliver, and freedom of interactivity that telephones only dream of.
Something this massive and good just begs for someone to control it, don't you think?
Well, that group has surfaced. It's not the Chinese government, not even your government. No, it's the telecommunications companies. The same folks who offer you three-tiered packages of programming instead of just charging you for the shows you want to see; the same people who offer expensive long distance packages when you can do better for next to nothing over the Internet; and the same people who want immunity from prosecution for accidentally illegally wiretapping millions of our phone conversations.
Since the telecoms deliver the Internet to you, they think the government should grant them the power to control how you use it. They want to make more money and put limits on what you see and how you see it. In their world, websites should be charged for the privilege of being seen by their customers. And sites should pay extra for making it possible for consumers to download their material faster (-- by removing the telecom's artificial restraints). Failure to pay these tolls results in your site not being seen, or in ultra-lengthy download times that drive impatient users elsewhere.
Imagine going online to CNN or to download music or watch an old TV show, but the feed is so slow that it no longer works properly. The grass on your lawn is growing faster. Why? Because someone didn't pay tacked-on fees to the local cable or phone company, and the feed was restricted.
The Telecoms are spending millions to convince Congressional candidates that giving them control makes for a less expensive, better Internet. As you read this, they’re donating money like there's no tomorrow, because after this election, the new Congress will be forced to decide if Telecoms should be given this power.
"Net Neutrality" basically means "Leave the Internet alone," and it's the battle cry for those who think handing over management and control of information to a few mega-corporations is the worst possible idea.
Net Neutrality isn't another "nutty left wing crusade." Internet giants like Google and Microsoft, consumer advocates such as Consumer Reports, small businesses who might be relegated to the slow lane, and iPod users who might find it harder to download tunes -- all want to maintain Net Neutrality.
"Maintain" is the magic word. Net Neutrality doesn't ask for new regulations; it only wants to be sure that the freedom we already have is preserved. If you believe in a true open market and don't want to give your freedom of choice to some corporate Big Brother, if you don't want your Internet experience censored or restricted, if you enjoy watching YouTube or visiting Facebook without limitations - you probably support Net Neutrality without even realizing it.
It's time for you to speak up and ask a few questions. Now is when you have the clout. Does your Senate candidate support maintaining freedom of the Internet - or increasing profits for the Telecoms? If you don't know, find out.
For more detailed information on the fight to save the Internet, please check out www.freepress.net/files/nn_fact_v_fiction_final.pdf, a fact sheet put together by Free Press, the Consumers Union, and Consumer Federation of America.
Michael Janover grew up in Denver and went to school and graduated from CU in Boulder in 1967. He’s been a WGA writer since 1978, worked for HAWAII 5-O, Wide World of Disney and wrote THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT while in Hollywood. He also helped start the Colorado Film School in Aurora.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
August 16, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
KatieFleming writes:
Thanks so much, Michael, for explaining Net Neutrality so clearly. Protecting the freedom of the Internet is not only critical for everything we do online now, but for a future where most people will get all their information via online sources. Even what we know as television programming will be online very soon.
We have to protect this democratic forum now, because it will be much harder to break the hold of the telecommunications industry after they've been given the right to control it.
www.ColoradoCommonCause.org
August 16, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Michael Janover says:
"'Net Neutrality' basically means 'Leave the Internet alone,' and it's the battle cry for those who think handing over management and control of information to a few mega-corporations is the worst possible idea.
This is such a bone-headed, simple minded way of describing a hellishly complex concept that it's hard to over criticize it.
Let's start with the completely ignorant statement, "Leave the Internet alone." If Mr. Janover had his wish 20 years ago we'd all still be on 14 kbs modems spending hours watching screens of text slowly load.
Next lets talk a little bit about what net neutrality really is, and while were at it, let's avoid describing it in terms that would fit on a bumper sticker or bubble gum wrapper.
The internet is just a vast switching network that transfers TCPIP packets of bits around. Net neutrality means that the contents of those packets, their origin or their destination should not determine how or if they get routed.
An example of non-net neutral behavoir would be if Comcast refused to allow packets of bits containg VOIP data coming from or going to your Comcast Internet connection unless you were paying them $40 a month for their VOIP service. In other words, you couldn't use Vonage's VOIP service for $25 a month or free Skype service. That's non-net neutral behavoir and the FCC has already said it's illegal.
August 16, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Another example of non-net neutral behavoir is Comcast de-prioritzing large video streams on their network. They did this because it only takes a few people downloading huge video files on the internet to bring their network to a crawl for everyone in the neighborhood. The FCC just recently banned Comcast from doing that, even though the goal of Comcast's actions were to maintain good internet access for as many people as possible.
The issue gets a lot more complicated when you start talking about different ways to transmit data rather than TCPIP packet switching, or when you start talking about some of the Quality of Service aspects of the internet protocol datagram that are used between network service providers. Furthermore, some data streams are inherently less suited to the structure of the current internet protocol because they require lower latency. So in that sense the current Internet is not really net neutral to begin with just because of the way it's implemented.
The real issue comes down, as it always does, to money. More and more people want more and more out of the internet. We want to play in massive online games, we want to download music and video, we want real-time video phones with no shakiness or jerkiness in the images, and all of this means we need bigger and bigger networks to handle more and more data. And no one is going to build those networks for free.
Ultimately, the fairest way to deal with it is to pay for the bandwidth you use. If you want to download hundreds of movies, or to talk in real time with your parents or kids on a high definition video phone, you should pay more to transfer that data than someone that's just exchanging text messages via email.
You should pay for the data you transfer, and you shouldn't be regulated in anyway when it comes to the content of that data.
August 18, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
critical_literacy writes:
Clearly it is not easy to summarize a complex problem in a brief article. However, Mr. Janover has done an excellent job cutting to the core of the issue of net-neutrality.
Woodwose's perspective illuminates the technical dimension of problem. Yet to consider technological issues alone reduces the significance of net-neutrality into packages of bits, broadband width, and ultimately dollars and cents when, in fact, that type of reductionist thinking is a symptom of the real problem.
Corporations are "sui juris" entities. That means they are fully vested with individual rights. Considering the potential influence of a mega-corporation in comparison to a single citizen, one can easily see how power can go awry. United States history proves that when corporations are given more rights, the shape of our citizenry changes. Our citizenship shifts from the freedom to effect social change to the freedom to choose what products to buy. In short, civic power is reduced to buying power, or the lack thereof.
To view the internet solely as a measurable and marketable commodity reflects consumerism rather than citizenship.
When Janover wrote, “leave the internet alone,” he clearly did not mean to stop the advancement of technology. Consider freedom of speech for a moment. Could I get on the radio and television to read this blog? Highly doubtful. Could I stand in front of Wal-Mart on a soap box and read this blog? I could, but not for long—and I wouldn’t be wearing a smiley face.
The internet represents public space. It is a venue for citizens to communicate, express, learn, opine, and even waste time. Albeit sometimes whacky, it is filled with humanity: culture, arts, politics, media exchange and more.
Television, film, and other media are no longer public forms of communication, they are private. Corporations were once regulated, but they became powerful political lobbies and like magic became de-regulated. They are now private spaces owned by giant private citizens: corporations. The only say we have in matters is, for example, which product to buy or which American Idol to vote for. It’s about the consumerism disguised as citizenship. There is no reason to believe that it would be any different if corporate “citizens” owned the internet. They already have their foot in the door. Janover suggests we mantain the "status quo," meaning let them keep their foot in the door, but don’t let them muscle their way into our public space.
Net-neutrality is much broader than broadband, it’s about our rights to public space. If given over to corporate gigantism, the internet will go the way of other public venues.
Unfortunately, no one will build the networks for free. However, if corporations are not strictly regulated, our fleeting revival of civic freedom through the internet will become history.
August 19, 2008
6:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Television, films and other forms of media have NEVER been the wholly public forms of communication that critical_literacy seems to suggest. Even the printing press didn't bring communication to the "masses." It brought select books that someone thought were good enough to be printed to the masses. And while anyone can write a book, buy a camera, shoot a movie, record a spoken opinion on tape, it's getting it distributed that's the challenge.
And yes, you could print out 1000 copies of your last post and pass them out in front of Wal-Mart or some other public place if you wanted to. But by yourself, you could never distribute your opinions to millions or even billions of people without the internet.
What I stated in my last post is that the content of the data streams that make up the internet should never be the deciding factor in when, if or how they get transmitted. It is perhaps obvious to me, but less obvious to others, that this means that what makes the internet the most democratic forum in the history of mankind, WOULD be preserved. That in a nutshell is what net neutrality means to me at it's most fundamental level. Data streams need to be treated neutrally, the only allowable differentiation should be that you pay for the total amount of data you transfer.
Because if that remains largely true, then anyone has the ability to say whatever they want on the internet, and anyone else has the ability to find that statement.
Unfortunately, most people refuse to recognize that the biggest threat to net neutrality is not corporations, but governments. China has a very aggressive program of blocking off wide swaths of the internet to it's own population as well as a grim history of prosecuting and imprisoning people that post content on the internet that it's government doesn't like.
And it's not just dictatorships, our own government threatens to institute bans on pornography on the internet that could easily be applied to other things deemed "not appropriate." Ten years ago our government had conniptions over PGP, which was a scheme for encrypting data exchanged over the internet that the National Security Agency couldn't break. People are already talking about re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine in "public" broadcasting and extending it to the internet.
I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of my postings to the internet being examined by the government and deleted because they were too controversial or not balanced by some opposing post.
No, by far the biggest threat to net neutrality is not so-called "mega corporations" but our own government. In terms of its sheer size and it's ability to write it's own rules, government is far more dangerous than any corporation.
August 19, 2008
7:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
critical_literacy writes:
To woodwose, I actually believe we may be driving similar points home with the significant exception of how we see our government and private enterprise.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are saying that as long as the internet is handled by corporate interests and not government, it will remain an open venue or "public space."
I agree with your point, that with the Patriot Act, the government now has the power to breach citizen privacy which can result in diminished civil rights.
Consider this. At the same time corporate lobbies control legislation. If one citizen shows up to a legislative session to voice his/her opinion to a legislator, and one lobbiest whose corporation has donated money to the campaign of the same legislator also shows up---well, you tell me who has the influence.
The problem isn't just “government” but the mis-management of the mechanisms that are meant to ensure democracy—with a small “d.”
You wrote, “And yes, you could print out 1000 copies of your last post and pass them out in front of Wal-Mart or some other public place if you wanted to.”
That’s not true. I mean I could print them out, but I would not be allowed to randomly pass out my political opinion in front of a store. Why? First of all, the space in front of most stores is NOT public. Of course I’m not too sure I would be welcome in front of City Hall, USA, either. Why? Because even our public community space is treated as privately owned space! Cities are incorporated, too.
Yes, government should not control the internet, nor should it fall into the jurisdiction of a few corporate giants. Be it control from the neo-conservatives or the neo-liberals, the result is the same.
Janover suggests “maintain” the "staus quo," not technologically, but in terms of content. To date, that is the best answer: to stand pat. What we have in the internet is an amazing venue. I agree. We cannot stand to lose it. However, citizens need to get wise lest they lose public space entirely.