- Related Stories
-
Net neutrality showdown
January 2, 2007 -
Net ignorance of the Christian Coalition
July 14, 2006 -
An e-contract for the 21st century
April 27, 2006 -
Republicans defeat Net neutrality proposal
April 5, 2006 -
ACLU to challenge Utah porn-blocking law
June 9, 2005 -
Perspective: Privacy advocates lose an ally
October 28, 2002 -
ACLU slams library Net filtering
June 17, 1998 -
ACLU threat reverses filter policy
January 28, 1998 -
ACLU threatens suit on Net filters
January 21, 1998
In "Net ignorance of the Christian Coalition," Armey conveniently fails to mention that Net neutrality was the law on the Internet until 2005. The dramatic expansion and innovation that he lauds existed and was made possible because the law prior to 2005 prohibited Internet service providers and other providers from erecting toll booths on the information superhighway.
The Federal Communications Commission and the Supreme Court effectively abolished the Net neutrality requirement just last year. Instead of dramatically expanding federal regulation of the Internet, a Net neutrality requirement would be restoring regulation that has existed for most of the life of the Internet.
Armey's argument that secure private-property rights and consumer choice will preserve free speech on the Internet similarly ignores inconvenient facts. Most consumers have few, if any, real choices regarding their broadband Internet providers. As these companies consolidate and move to secure their own "private property rights," consumers will have even fewer choices.
The result is that fewer and fewer companies will have more and more control over what consumers see and do on the Internet. If the consumer does not like the services provided by his ISP, he or she will essentially have two choices: Take it or leave it. In a nutshell, this is Congressman Armey's philosophy of the free market.
Finally, Armey asks why the Christian Coalition would support a federal law forcing ISPs to treat pornography the same as family-friendly content. Protection of free speech includes speech with which we disagree. If ISPs are allowed to become the gatekeepers of the Internet, everyone's speech is at risk. Regardless of whether the ISP disagrees with the speech or merely finds that some speech is not as profitable as others, the end result is that the marketplace of ideas will be radically diminished.
We are already seeing ISPs controlling speech with which they disagree. For example, Time Warner's AOL blocked all e-mails that mentioned "www.dearaol.com", an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. BellSouth recently blocked its customers' access to MySpace.com in Tennessee and Florida. Net discrimination is real, it is occurring now, and is only going to get worse.
Anyone who feels that Net neutrality will stifle innovation on the Internet isn't paying attention to history.
For example, before the government broke up the company, AT&T controlled all telephone access. You could not buy a telephone--you had to rent one from AT&T. You could not hook up any non-AT&T-approved device to the telephone lines, including answering machines and modems. And, of course, there was a hefty premium to pay if you wanted to use any AT&T devices. There was no real competition and thus no incentive to innovate.
It was only after the company was dismantled, and there was increased competition, that the dramatic innovation we have seen in the last 25 years came about. Now that AT&T has started gobbling up much of its competition, it is starting to yearn for its glory days of absolute control over its network.
On the Internet today, no one is getting a free ride. You pay for your Internet access to your ISP. Google and Yahoo pay huge amounts of money because their sites use more bandwidth than the average blog or Web site. Net neutrality won't change that. What it does do is stop network operators from playing favorites and deciding that the service quality a content provider gets depends on the business arrangement it makes with the ISP.
Suppose Google and Yahoo continue to pay large amounts of money for their Internet access, but AT&T works out a deal with Google. Users who wish to use Yahoo for a search engine get routed to Google instead. Or else, searches of Yahoo are slowed down so much that users become frustrated and switch to Google. AT&T gets to make more money, and the user's choices become more limited. Or you decide to visit your favorite blog. Since the blogger didn't pay enough to the ISP for preferential treatment, you can go have lunch and dinner while the site loads on your computer, if it loads at all.
The Supreme Court has recognized that through the use of the Internet, anyone can be a town crier or pamphleteer "with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." It is a unique medium for expression.
But the Internet did not get where it is by letting gatekeepers determine what information reaches its destination or slowing the information from competitors. If the Internet is to be preserved as a forum for speech and innovation, Congress must reinstate the requirement of Net neutrality.
Biography
Caroline Fredrickson is the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office.
See more CNET content tagged:
Net Neutrality, speech, Internet Service Provider, AT&T Corp., innovation
the future of the information superhighway that was coming. We
talked about gatekeepers being large corporations and nations
who wanted to control who had access to what information. And
this fear we had that monied interesets would take over and
keep people from having free access to information seems to be
a great possiblity.
Who better than the ACLU to support this? We have to recognize
that government officials has a vested interest in supporting the
deep-pocketed companies like AT&T, and they're going to
unless we make it very uncomfortable.
The rants against the ACLU here and elsewhere are the same
cluelessness that allowed the Nazis to attack the Jews, and then
the homosexuals, handicapped and finally even Christian
theologians who had the temerity to question the treatment of
Jews and others.
They may not be restricting your speech at this point, but once
they restrict the speech of the people you disapprove of, they
are going to come after you in the end. And that means anyone
who doesn't have millions to line their pockets is going to be cut
out as wasters of bandwidth.
-NN does not legislate pricing.
-It does not prevent ISP's from charging according to bandwith used or prohibit tiered packaging based on connectivity.
-It does not prevent ISP's from providing content or "special" content streams.
It simply requires all bits be treated equal across the network regardless of origin, destination, or legal activity.
Is that really so difficult to understand Sen. Ted "Tubes" Stevens???
While I am a conservative in all dimensions I can think of, I do think that Net Neutrality does need to be regulated.
Free and open markets are usually the best policy, but the same profit motive that greases the wheels of capitalism, eventually causes those who are entrusted with the delivery of a public asset to simultaneously squander and devalue that asset by overcharging, limiting access, and otherwise manipulating the market.
Whether it's railroads, radio broadcasting, utilities (telephone, power, etc.), internet access, or any other public asset, legislation is always required to maintain value to the public.
Net Neutrality legislation is needed now, so we won't have to undo the damage after it happens.
The reason you see only anti-neutrality ads is because the telcos have deep, deep pockets already and are using those to pooh-pooh the net neutrality fears. They've gone so far as to create "fake" grassroots groups, even, but they are wholly funded by the telcos.
Heck, they could spend billions on ads and it would still be a good deal - if they avoid net neutrality laws, they can then charge everyone for everything for many years to come.
Assuming Fredrickson is speaking of the "Brand X" case, she mischaracterizes the FCC and Supreme Court ruling. Basically, Brand X was an ISP that went to court to force cable companies to lease their networks to competitors at regulated rates. The Supreme Court ruled that "data services" like cable were exempt from "common carrier" regulation. (Data services had been exempt since the 1970s.) In other words, "net neutrality" was the novel idea.
The ACLU should stick to civil liberties.
Finally, to accuse anyone of "being in over their head" on this issue is the funniest part! Go listen to an esteemed legislative expert such as Sen. Ted Stevens, Chairman on the Senate Commerce Committee also on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Appropriations Subcommittees on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary; Interior; Labor, Health, Human Services and Education; and Legislative Branch. He also is a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and is Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress.
This man is trying to pass sweeping legislation, the Telecommunications Reform Act of 2006. From his very own words it's clear he obviously lacks understanding of the technology for which he is legislating over! I'll respect the ACLU's opinion over this senile old fool who's in the Teleco's pockets. Besides, Ted's tubes are probably still full!
AOL AND VARIOUS OTHER PARTIES (MARCH 11, 2004)
Carl A. Patton
P.O. Box 1745
Murfreesboro, TN 37133
Main Screen Name previously with AOL: calpatton
Cancelled service 8 March 2004
I have been a member of AOL for more than seven years. I have had an on-line Journal (FreedomJournal) for at least six years. I have also had Web Pages with AOL for most of that time.
AOL claims I have violated their terms of agreement policies thus my Journal has been cancelled regarding bulk email and alleged spamming.
However AOL seems to have gotten involved in Censorship. Recently I received several hate messages. I reported this to AOL. Soon after that AOL informed me that they had received over 30 complaints from various people. But they would not reveal to me the nature of the complaints. For example did these complaints come from the people who had sent me hate mail? Also is it responsible to penalize me because someone visited my Web Pages and disagreed with some of my research? Also did AOL investigate the source of the email messages received by those that made the alleged complaints?
Historically I have received hate mail. Also many people have complained and threatened to report me to AOL to Censor, Ban are stop me from posting my on-line Journal. Many of these people have never been on any of my email lists. Anyone on my list is removed at their request. Also we all know that there is a delete button. You also don?t have to read any material that offends you and material that you disagree with.
Meanwhile I am confused, how can you conduct an investigation of complaints made against me without referring to the complaints. More specifically how can you take action against me for alleged complaints but deny me the right to offer my side.
Also in my quest for justice and my right to Free Speech I contacted the FBI. The FBI informed me that my case did not fall under the criminal codes regarding Civil Rights violations. However they encouraged me to seek Civil Action.
To do this I need an attorney to request all messages of complaints forwarded to AOL regarding my Journal. I also need written documentation regarding the hate mail I have received over the years.
This information can be requested from:
Legal Dept.
2200 AOL Way
Dulles, VA 20166
Peace be unto you,
Carl A. Patton
publications, there are people who need no other reason to send
hate mail, or at least non-favorable mail. The definition of hate
mail is often an arbitrary call by the receiver - a call which may
not be actually rational.
Secondly, the operations of AOL are not exactly professional
even on a good day. So any form of screw-ups by AOL are to be
expected as the price of using their defective service. What AOL
does, and what AOL says they did are not necessarily
coordinated. There could be a great deal of BS in this
'resolution'.
The FBI probably made the right call. They pay attention to real
crimes and let the individuals resolve less serious conflicts.
Maybe you need to just relax and accept the unpleasant mail as
the price for having your head up.
- by gjkezski November 7, 2008 8:30 AM PST
- I agree that the ACLU is at times VERY irritating with some of the causes they champion. Many of them are extremely unpopular with a large portion of the population. There have been a few times that they have completely enraged me. However they DO serve an occasional useful purpose.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(17 Comments)The biggest purpose they champion is Freedom in any form. This time I believe that they are right.
The biggest surprise to me is that the Christian Coalition, another group that has many times righteously ticked me off by trying to tell me that I MUST live the way THEY want, actually agrees with them.
I guess Miracles do occur!
If you want to promote Net Neutrality try looking at a sponsored link from here on CNET:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq?gclid=CIWQtO--45YCFRdinAodDlCeOg