Net Neutrality Threatened By Court Decision

Image via Wikipedia

Published on Sunday, April 11, 2010 by Women's International Perspective
The Battle for Net Neutrality: Corporate Takeover or Opportunity?

by Megan Tady

On Tuesday, April 6th a federal court decision put the Internet, and your ability to use it, in jeopardy. It's a major setback for free speech online and for the prospects of connecting the entire country to broadband.

The Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacks the current authority to enforce rules that keep Internet service providers from blocking and controlling Internet traffic - a principle called Net Neutrality.

The court ruled in favor of the Internet service provider Comcast, which was caught blocking the file sharing service BitTorrent in 2007 and contested the FCC's attempts to stop the company. The decision makes it nearly impossible for the FCC to follow through with plans to create strong Net Neutrality protections that keep the Internet out of the hands of corporations. Additionally, without authority over broadband, the FCC could be unable to implement portions of its just released National Broadband Plan designed to bridge the digital divide.

Millions of Internet users don't realize that a battle over the future of the Internet is being played out right now in Washington D.C. On one side are public interest and consumer groups, small businesses, Internet entrepreneurs, librarians, civil libertarians and civil rights groups. They want to preserve the Internet as it is - the last remaining open communications platform where anyone with access and a computer can create and consume online content. The principle of "Network Neutrality" is what makes this open communications possible. Net Neutrality is what allows us to go wherever we want online.

In a message to members of the organization ColorofChange.org, Director James Rucker stressed the importance of Net Neutrality for voices, perspectives, and communities traditionally marginalized and ignored. "For Black folks, [Net Neutrality] is crucial," he writes. "For the first time in history we can communicate with a global audience - for entertainment, education, or political organizing - without prohibitive costs, or mediation by gatekeepers in government or industry."

On the other side of this battle are the Internet service providers who want to dismantle Net Neutrality. Not only do they want to provide Internet service, but they want to be able to charge users to prioritize their content, effectively giving the Internet service providers the ability to choose which content on the Web loads fast, slow, or not at all.

The foundation for the Net Neutrality battle began in 2002 with the Bush FCC reclassifying broadband as an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service." This was a huge blow to Internet protections like Net Neutrality because the FCC doesn't have the same regulatory oversight over information services that it has over telecommunications services.

It is this classification loophole, coupled with the D.C. Circuit's decision, that let Comcast wiggle out from under the FCC's thumb and convince the courts that the FCC has no business clamping down on their Net Neutrality violations. And it is this loophole that will make the FCC powerless when it comes to achieving many of the objectives set out in the Obama administration's national broadband plan to provide high speed Internet access to rural America.

The FCC can resurrect its power by changing broadband back to a "telecommunications service." Reclassifying broadband will make these questions about FCC authority obsolete, allowing the agency to get back to the important work of protecting free speech online and bridging the digital divide.

While this fix may seem simple, it will take political courage from the FCC and Chairman Julius Genachowski to do the right thing. The telecom industry will be hammering the FCC with pressure to keep broadband a lawless land in order to deepen their control and enormous profits. At the same time, concerned Americans are encouraging the FCC to protect Net Neutrality and the national broadband plan.

Free Press Director Josh Silver reminded the public what's at stake during an interview Wednesday on Democracy Now! "People have to remember, all media-television, radio, phone service-every type of media other than the printed page, will soon be delivered by a broadband or Internet connection."

Like me, you love the Internet. It takes you where you want to go. Frustrated with mainstream media you have found alternative news and information online, like this very site. You turn on your computer and you're connected to the world. Our relationship with the phone and cable companies should stop when we pay for our Internet service. These companies should not be able to block, control, or interfere with what we search for or create online. Nor should they be able to prioritize some content over others.

Let's hope the court just handed the FCC the best opportunity to make a systemic change to how they oversee our nation's primary communications platform, and their ability to stop the corporate takeover of the Internet once and for all.
© 2010 Women's International Perspective

Megan Tady is Campaign Coordinator for Free Press. Prior to joining Free Press, Megan was a national political reporter for In These Times, The New Standard, and worked extensively as a freelance journalist.

Related articles by Zemanta

• FCC pursues broadband agenda in spite of legal setback (macworld.com)
• Court Favors Comcast in F.C.C. 'Net Neutrality' Ruling (nytimes.com)
• Net neutrality takes a hit in court (americablog.com)
• Court says FCC can't impose network neutrality (sfgate.com)
• Court says FCC can't impose network neutrality (sfgate.com)
• Court rules FCC doesn't have authority to impose net neutrality (engadget.com)
• FCC can't enforce net neutrality: court (cbc.ca)
• The FCC must act quickly to regulate broadband companies, (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• "Net Neutrality" Suffers Setback in Court (lockergnome.com)
• D.C. Circuit Quietly Ruins the Internet for Everybody (abovethelaw.com)

Support Network Neutrality

Published on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 by Save the Internet
American Library Association Wants Network Neutrality

by Carrie Lowe

At last month’s American Library Association annual conference in Chicago, I served on a Sunday morning panel presentation on the topic of Network Neutrality. On that day, there was no Network Neutrality legislation in Congress (like there is today, thanks to Reps. Markey and Eshoo). There was no flashy evening news piece on the topic, no rock stars on the Hill advocating for a free and open Internet. Yet 500 librarians showed up on a spectacular Chicago summer morning to hear Cliff Lynch, Greg Jackson and me talk about Network Neutrality.

If you are not familiar with librarians, this story might surprise you. But if you have ever found yourself on the business end of a discussion of intellectual freedom issues with someone from our community, you can predict what I am going to say next: The audience asked incredibly thoughtful questions and challenged some basic assumptions.

You see, Network Neutrality is, at its core, an issue central to librarians’ professional hearts. Like other issues that we’ve dealt with – such as censorship or book banning – Network Neutrality is fundamentally about having access to ideas.

Libraries’ Position on Network Neutrality

The ALA’s Office for Information Technology Policy laid out its position on Network Neutrality in an issue brief published in 2006. In that paper, we argued that libraries’ interest in Network Neutrality is twofold.

First, Network Neutrality is an intellectual freedom issue. The ALA defines intellectual freedom as the right of all people to seek and receive information from all points of view, without restriction. Unfortunately, there is no law that protects intellectual freedom on the Internet today. Internet service providers (such as the cable and telephone companies) have the ability to block or degrade information or services travelling over their networks. If these companies discriminate against certain kinds of information based on the content of the message being delivered, this would represent a severe violation of intellectual freedom.

Second, Network Neutrality is a competition issue. Libraries in the digital age are providers of online information of all kinds. Among hundreds of examples, public libraries are developing online local history resources, and academic libraries allow the online public to explore some of their rarest treasures. Libraries, as trusted providers of free public access to information, should not compete for priority with for-profit history or literature Web sites that might be able to afford to strike deals with service providers. This makes the Network Neutrality debate not only a matter of philosophy and values for librarians, but also of livelihood.

In addition, librarians value innovation. Many of the technologies most central to the Internet are founded in principles of librarianship. Metadata? We call it cataloging. Online search? May I point you to the online public access catalog (OPAC)? Linked content? Cross references in the card catalog. Indexes, full-text search – the list goes on and on. We understand that in the context of the Internet, innovation begins at the edges; a killer app is more likely to be developed by two guys in a garage than by a highly paid executive in an industrial park. It is vital to preserve and encourage this innovation that has built the Internet. Network Neutrality is central to achieving this goal.

So What Do Libraries Want?

While our profession is built on some lofty principles – and librarians are among the fiercest free speech and intellectual freedom advocates you’ll meet – we are also a community of pragmatists. We believe that there is a way to strike a balance on Network Neutrality.

There oughtta be a law. The FCC changed the rules in 2005, removing the legal protections that guaranteed consumers the right to send and receive communications and content of their choosing over the Internet. Legal protections to prevent discrimination by ISPs and to protect intellectual freedom and innovation on the Internet should be restored. There are two ways to do this:

1. The “fifth principle”of nondiscrimination is right on the money. The language of the nondiscrimination condition the FCC applied to the AT&T/BellSouth merger (and echoed in the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program rules) is rational and appropriate. We urge the FCC to make this principle official.

2. Congress should act to preserve the neutral and open nature of the Internet. The Internet Freedom Preservation Act is the right bill at the right time. We urge Congress to pass this legislation.

Tiered pricing structures are both fair and unrelated to the central debate. We strongly agree that any Web site or organization (including libraries – nearly all public libraries provide no-cost access to the Internet) with a high-bandwidth connection should pay more for that service than a home user or a smaller organization. This is a traditional tiered pricing structure, and it is a fair and proven model. However, once a user has purchased bandwidth, there should be no artificial restraints on the legal content that he or she receives.

The Network Neutrality debate shows no signs of slowing down, and as I witnessed in Chicago, librarians show no sign of losing interest in this topic. We look forward to working with policymakers to protect the free and open nature of the Internet. Our libraries – and our nation – deserve nothing less.
Carrie Lowe is the Director of the Program on Networks at the American Library Association's Office for Information Technology