December 4, 2007 | Volume 4, Issue 4

Net Neutrality

Safeguarding the Internet's Democratic Potential

by Angie Yowell

Introduction

Free and open media communication is essential to a flourishing democracy. Without information that is freely accessible, citizens cannot fully engage in the democratic process because they are unable to exercise their right to cast an informed vote. Voting, political change, and social cooperation within the United States are often influenced by advocacy groups who spread information to their supporters and the public.

Mobilization of civic participation has been a part of American life since Revolutionary times, such as when Thomas Paine’s pamphlet “Common Sense” helped to persuade the colonists to support the Revolutionary War against the British government. With the advent of each additional communications medium (telegraph, radio, television, etc.), the ability of information to travel over time and space is altered. American citizens are given opportunities to connect with each other faster and more often for political communication and advocacy organization.

While television is still the number one source of news information, the Internet is becoming a primary source for younger generations.¹ The Internet is drastically changing the landscape of advocacy. E-advocacy has been a key tool in recent years for advocacy groups to efficiently reach out to citizens and spur them toward civic engagement.

The Internet operates and thrives under a policy called “net neutrality,” whereby all information passes through the network in a non-discriminatory way. However, commercial interests are seeking to change this policy. Such a change would threaten the ability of advocacy groups to continue using the Internet for their outreach work. This paper argues that the policy of net neutrality, which makes the outreach efforts of advocacy groups possible, should be passed into law for broadband networks.

Public Policy Supporting the Proliferation of E-Advocacy

Open communications networks, including network neutrality, are key to keeping e-advocacy alive. Currently, information travels on the Internet on a non-discriminatory, “first come, first serve” basis. For example, end-users are able to access the Web content of the American Civil Liberties Union’s site just as easily and quickly as commercial content on AT&T’s Web site. This non-discriminatory common-carrier approach is often termed “net neutrality.”
When the Internet operated on a dial-up system, service providers were not able to discriminate between content because of the laws regulating the telephone system as a common carrier. However, these common carrier laws have not yet been applied to broadband networks, and with most of the country now switching to broadband Internet access, cable companies are attempting to ensure that their ability to control content and the flow of information (in the absence of common-carrier rules) is built into law. This policy would allow for a tiered Internet system, whereby the Internet Service Providers (ISP) could inspect online activity and ensure that clients who have paid significantly more for their service have their content move faster, while all others are relegated to the “slow lane.” The ability for these ISPs to inspect packets of information sent over the Internet brings up privacy issues in addition to concern about fairness.

After several years of debate on this topic, the Federal Communications Commission recently abandoned the principles of an open communications system in favor of a proprietary system, just as the telecom companies (SBC/AT&T, Time Warner, and Verizon) had requested through their massive lobbying efforts. The communications industry out-spent all others in lobbying in 2006, including the energy and pharmaceutical industries, and employed more than one lobbyist per member of Congress. In response, consumer groups and leading technology firms mobilized to petition for open access. The High Tech Broadband Coalition (HTBC) offered four “connectivity principles” designed to keep the Internet successful:

• Consumers have a right to meaningful information regarding technical limitations of their service.
• Consumers should have unrestricted access to their choice of Internet content using the bandwidth capacity of their service plan.
• Cable modem customers should be allowed to run applications of their choice, as long as they do not harm the provider’s network and are within the bandwidth limits of their service plans.
• Consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose, without prior permission, to their ISP connection, so long as they operate within the agreed bandwidth and do not harm the provider’s network or enable the theft of services.²

HTBC supports these principles of network neutrality in order that competition continues between developers and suppliers of devices, applications, and content.³ The National Research Council issued a report in 1994 stressing the importance of the Internet as an open communications network to achieve full efficiency. This meant the Internet must be kept open to users, providers, network providers, and change.⁴ Nonprofit or community organizations often operate on shoestring budgets or no budgets at all, making their access to open networks essential to the operation of their communication and outreach strategies.
The effects on e-advocacy could be dramatic if net neutrality is not solidified into law. With Congressional power now in the hands of the Democratic Party, net neutrality advocates are more hopeful than ever of seeing Internet protection laws passed, but they have an uphill battle against the communications lobby. The telecommunications giants have given federal candidates $115 million since the 2000 election, and they have spent at least $344 million on lobbyists since 2002.⁵

Threats to Advocacy

Large telecommunications companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner would like to eliminate net neutrality and charge clients higher fees for faster service. In addition to the hundreds of millions spent on campaign donations and lobbyists in the name of profits, they have set up and funded fake grassroots advocacy groups posing for consumer interests, also called “astroturf” groups. Several researchers and other advocacy groups, including Common Cause, have documented this kind of underhanded tactic.⁶ These astroturf groups, including www.handsofftheinternet.com and www.netcompetition.org, attempt to portray net neutrality as government regulation of the Internet. Anti-net neutrality legislation would allow these companies to regulate the Internet, acting as gatekeepers and funneling certain information faster based on clients’ greater ability to pay.

The telecoms argue that net neutrality stifles innovation. As the policy of net neutrality has been in place since the advent of the Internet, this declaration is proved false. The Internet has grown exponentially since its inception, spurring unprecedented innovation and new commerce. It is unlikely that innovation will suddenly begin to slow down if these principles remain legislatively protected. The telecoms’ astroturf groups are able to play on citizens’ emotional distaste for government regulation in order to present their case in a misleading fashion.

The telecoms lament that Internet content providers (ICPs) get a “free ride” on their “pipes.”⁷ Former CEO of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, went so far as to say ICPs were “nuts” for expecting to be able to use AT&T’s broadband infrastructure to send information for “free,” despite the fact that they already pay for bandwidth and access.⁸ In fact, the Media Access Project estimates that telecoms collect $10 billion each year in access and service fees.9 More importantly, Whitacre’s claiming of absolute ownership over this valuable communications system is disturbing considering the vast amount of public investment in the Internet and its infrastructure. Our government spent millions of taxpayer dollars developing the Internet, as well as the systems that support it. These companies were not involved with the creation of the World Wide Web or Web browsers.

The telecom companies maintain that in order to continue building advanced broadband networks, they will be forced to charge consumers more for access. If ISPs were to charge ICPs more for tiered service, the costs would be passed on to the consumer in the form of charges for viewing Web pages and higher prices for goods and services bought online. Many nonprofit and advocacy groups could be pushed out of the Web entirely as their budgets are very often squeezed to capacity already. If they cannot afford to pay more than they do currently for their Web content or e-advocacy campaigns, their content will either be downgraded or will vanish altogether.

Citizens have come to rely on the information they receive from the Internet; just as advocacy groups have come to rely on it for their outreach efforts. For private companies to monopolize such a valuable resource for commercial purposes would be detrimental to public discourse and democracy.

Conclusion

Congress must pass Internet protection laws to safeguard net neutrality. Policymakers should also encourage public investment in the Internet. Now that our economy is shifting to the Information Age, the Internet is too important of a resource to be left to commercial interests. While more true competition is generally good for the public and consumers, it is unlikely that we will see newcomers overcoming the hurdles of start-up costs to enter the broadband market. The oligopoly of telecom companies will continue to fight and throw money at their cause, attempting to control the flow of information over an increasingly vital communications network. Therefore, antitrust regulators should be keeping a close eye on these companies rather than allowing them to consolidate further. U.S. telecommunications policy should reflect the needs of all Americans and ensure democracy in these networks, rather than granting favors to guarantee profits for telecom companies. With consumer and user-based policies in place, the Internet will continue to thrive and provide vital information to the American public.

Works Cited

¹ Pew Research Center, News Audiences Increasingly Politicized. Online. Available: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=834. Accessed: July 2, 2007.

² Mark Cooper, The Public Interest in Open Communications Networks. Online. Available: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/attachments/OpenCommunicationsNetwork.pdf. Accessed: June 20, 2007.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Jeff Chester, Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy. (New York: New Press, 2007).

⁶ Common Cause Education Fund, Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing, Part II. Online. Available: www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1–4DF6–92BE-BD4429893665%7D/WOLVESPART2.PDF. Accessed: July 2, 2007.

⁷ Patricia O’Connell. At SBC, It’s all About “Scale and Scope.” Online. Available: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm. Accessed: July 1, 2007.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Common Cause, Straight Talk on Net Neutrality. Online. Available: http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1709777. Accessed: July 1, 2007.

Related Content

My Rights Versus Yours

Nicole Mace