Last Thursday, the Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, an independent government organization which oversees all non-federal communications agencies and implements policy, decided to launch an inquiry into the much-debated issue of Internet network neutrality. The inquiry showcases the FCC's foot-dragging approach to tackling an issue that demands immediate action in order to prevent abuse, or worse — negligence.
Network neutrality is the most fundamentally underlying concept behind the Internet, ensuring that all content is handled equally, regardless of its source or ownership. It is the reason we are able to view, at the same speed, both the smallest blog and the largest corporate Web site.
Major corporations, such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner, own the fiber-optic cables used to transmit data that act as the backbone of the modern Internet. In 2005, SBC CEO Ed Whiteacre reasoned that in order to see a return on his fiber-optic cable investment, he would charge customers for their connection to Internet service providers, or ISPs, and then charge content providers (Google, Ebay, etc.) for access to those customers.
Those who don't want to pay this "royalty" would be subjected to slower speeds, less visibility and decreased functionality. In addition, these network providers, without net neutrality, would be able to completely block access to their competitors.
If it's a money thing for Whitacre and his contemporaries, let's look at the numbers. The combined annual revenues of AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner and Comcast exceed $200 billion.
Profit above all else and discrimination aren't the only forces Internet users would have to reckon with; the very structure of the Internet would be challenged.
SavetheInternet.com, a nonprofit organization made up of hundreds of groups from a diverse political and social spectrum, posits that the Internet's openness has served as a catalyst for economic innovation, fueled democratic participation and buoyed free speech.
All of this is at stake.
Corporate heads have argued that their overhaul of the current system would revolutionize the Internet for the best. Using glitzy public relations speak, they affirm that their creation of a "tiered Internet" would allow them to distribute preferred content, such as Web sites with large broadband content, much faster.
This, of course, comes at the heavy price of allowing profit-interested corporations to decide what content is and isn't preferred, based on their own criteria.
They've also argued that network neutrality stifles corporate innovation by allowing government to meddle and regulate their affairs. Yet if we allow corporations to do as they please without governmental oversight, we should expect gross abuses.
Worse yet, consider the case of AT&T, where compliant government agencies acquiesced to the monopolistic merger of AT&T and Bell South. AT&T is also guilty of abusing their consumers' privacy rights — they handed over millions of private phone calls to the Orwellian National Security Administration.
The dissolution of network neutrality and the FCC's equally damaging time lag in addressing the issue is incredibly harmful to the free, open and democratic Internet we enjoy today. Multi-billion dollar ISP networks would crush the current safeguards that protect content providers from abuse.
If you appreciate one of the last remaining shreds of democracy this country can still boast, call Rep. Lamar Smith, who represents the UT district, and tell him you don't want big business controlling your Internet. He can be reached at his Austin district office from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday through Thursday at 512-306-0439.
While you're at it, ask him why he receives such large campaign contributions from AT&T, and why he has previously supported anti-net neutrality legislation.