Internet Neutrality
Isaac Parenteau
Donald Manders
ENG-1043-TW1
February 6, 2007
Outline:
Thesis Statement: Internet neutrality is a must to keep a free and open market on the
internet allowing users to receive the content that he or she desires and not get censored
by the gate keeper.
I) Why would internet providers want to control the internet?
A. Want to control their investments and interests
B. Increase the cost for more bandwidth allowing companies pay more for
increased traffic
C. Change the way the internet operates
D. Prioritize information that is sent over the internet
1.
Slow lanes and fast lanes.
II) Some countries require censorship on sites to control the flow of information
A. Repressive governments fear the open internet.
B. China has laws preventing citizens from posting information that reflects
negatively against the country.
C. Websites that want to do business in china have to follow stringent rules to
block information that shows negative information against these countries
D. Individuals wonder why American companies are helping China censor
the internet.
III) Internet neutrality is a must to allow users the free access to information he or she
desires.
A. Users can go to the sites he or she would want too without anyone saying
they cannot.
B. Can access controversial information for research
C. Allows users to get all the information he or she needs to make an
informed decision.
D. With no internet control, the government cannot control the flow of
information making it not able to control its citizens when it comes time to
release information.
Conclusion: There are many reasons why the internet should be controlled but the
negative impacts far out weight the positive. If the internet becomes controlled then
corporations and the government would be able to control the flow of information
blocking everything that they seem fit that goes against their beliefs and ideals. The
internet needs to remain free for all users to access what he or she desires without any
time of censorship.
“The internet is full of tubes,” said Senator Ted Stevens during a Congressional
hearing addressing the issue of internet neutrality, “and if you don't understand those
tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and
it’s going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material”
His statement is the key component opposing against internet neutrality and backing new
legislation to remove internet neutrality (Slashdot). Internet neutrality is the belief that
everyone should be able to go anywhere they want on the internet without be censored
preserving a free and open internet. This allows users full control over the content they
want to run for applications or devices of their choosing. Internet neutrality prevents the
owners of the internet cables (e.g. Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner) from discriminating
against content based on source or ownership. By controlling the internet, being the gate
keeper, a company can control the flow of information and redirect users to content that
they support or to business that pay them the most. (Save the internet). Internet neutrality
is a must to keep a free and open market on the internet allowing users to receive the
content that he or she desires and not get censored by the gate keeper.
The key reason not enact internet neutrality is to protect internet service providers
investments and interests. Ed Whitacre the Chief Executive Officer of SBC
Communications said:
How do you think they’re [digital content] going to get to Customers?
Through a broadband pipe. Now what online business would like to do is
use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that. The internet can’t
be free in that sense because we and the cable companies have made an
investment and for them to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!
(Clemmit 415)
In the United States, internet service providers already blocks competing
companies from using their broadband lines. Advocates for internet neutrality worry that
providers will use their powers to block or limit access to controversial sites or businesses
that compete with the provider. They want congress to pass a law that would require
companies to treat content sent over the internet as the same (Clemits 409).
Telephone and cable companies want to get rid of the traditional internet “open
pipe” system with one that scans data content and allocates the traffic to high priority
lanes if needed. They say its need to insure a higher quality of service for customers who
download content that uses a lot of bandwidth and to raise money to extend fiber optic
cable to handle a faster internet (Clemits 411). Marcia Clemits in her article “Controlling
the Internet” from CQ Researcher asserts that internet service providers want to protect
their business from new competition that offers the same services over their broadband
lines (411). Jeffery Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy states
big internet service providers hope to remake the internet in the “entertainment model”
where big-money players control distribution channels determining which content makes
it onto the movie or television screen. “Phone and cable companies know that if there’s
an open wire then their business is over. They have to make sure that their own content
can receive premium treatment (411).”
Cable companies want to alter the open internet to prioritize transmissions
depending on the content and speed it up or slow it down depending on content. The
prioritization would increase competition amongst internet providers and make them
specialized in one way or another says Christopher Woo, Professor of Technology and
Entertainment law at Vanderbilt University Law School (Clemmit 415). Basically each
internet provider would offer something unique and individuals would be able to choose
which provider they want to subscribe with depending on their needs, but advocates for
internet neutrality believe this type of control is detrimental to subscribers. It would mean
that only wealthy companies and/or individuals would have access to the higher speeds
while the poorer and non profit organizations would be restricted to the slower speeds.
This system would slow down innovations an allow providers to block, slow down, or
charge higher fees to companies that use their networks (Clemmit 415). For example,
America On-Line’s wanted to allow companies to pay higher fees for mass emails and it
would bypass spam filters. This would mean that large corporations with mass amounts
of money could send emails to thousands of individuals with advertisements and
information while poorer sites and non profit sites could not (Clemmit 411). Mark
Wegleitner the Chief Technical Officer of Verizon states that internet providers want
customers to reach as many sites as possible and they are their to help them reach those
sites (Clemmit 416).
Internet censorship is a way for governments to oppress their people and control
the flow of information. By controlling the information that is on the internet, they can
control what citizens are exposed too and can spread propaganda easier. Governments
that tyrannize their citizens fear an uncontrolled internet. It played a major role in
Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” which made the government overturn its 2004 election
results because it was falsified. Demonstrators used community websites to post where
protestors needed help. With this, they were able to quickly amass people where they
were needed and successfully organized a revolt against the fraudulent election (Clemmit
413). There are other countries that fear the uncontrolled internet, but China is the largest
contributor to internet censorship and actively seeks ways to keep dissidents under
control.
China, the second largest internet user, encourages the internet to be used as a tool
but it also blocks certain content. It blocks websites, censors citizens web searches and
tracks individuals who post opinions or information on blogs that negatively reflect
China. Marcia Clemmit argued “the Chinese government not only censors websites that
question government action, but also those dealing with teen pregnancy, homosexuality,
dating, beer, and even jokes.” (413) Chinese writers who write about controversial
information, have found themselves in trouble with the law and their sites shutdown
along with all their writings. The Chinese government, who are working with local and
overseas business, are trying desperately seeking and censoring these sites.
On February 15 2006, a congressional hearing was held against Microsoft,
Google, Yahoo! and Cisco asking why they are helping the Chinese Government to
censor the internet for the Chinese users. Tom Lantos, representative from California, ask
them how they could live with their actions and they all responded almost the same way:
The Chinese people are still better off because US companies engage with
Chinese market and connect china to the global internet. They’re doing
their best to do the right thing, but it’s impossible to keep your hands
completely clean in a place like china. You still have to follow Chinese
law and regulations even if the Chinese law enforcement is rather less
accountable than back home (America’s).
The four companies each contribute some type of technology that helps the
Chinese government to censor the internet. Cisco sells routers that have censor
technology built into it allowing Chinese customers the ability to block content that goes
against their laws. It also helps police track down dissidents by monitoring their internet
use. Microsoft provides Chinese customers with instant messaging, hotmail and MSN
spaces. It filters blogs and information for the Chinese users that goes against Chinese
law. Yahoo! has servers in china making them subjected to Chinese law and it has to
release vital information to the Chinese government that lists users who post information
that is illegal according to the Chinese law. This has lead to the arrest of many dissidents
in recent years. Google introduced google.cn which censors searches that correspond
with Chinese law, but google.com, which does not censor searches, is still available to the
Chinese users (MacKinnon). Google, Microsoft and Cisco does not have servers in
China, so they are not subjected to their laws. The only thing they have to do is filter and
censor searches and sites that goes against the law. Yahoo! on the other hand has a server
in China, therefore; subjected to the laws. The arrests of many dissidents have made users
angry at Yahoo! for allowing the government to obtain users’ internet logs and they have
been slowly turning away from Yahoo! and seeking other search providers.
A legislation draft called Global Online Freedom Act of 200, which is backed by
New Jersey representative Christopher Smith and co-sponsored by Tom Lantos, was
introduced that would make it illegal for U.S companies like Google and Yahoo! etc. to
provide services to censor and filter online materials to countries that are not
“democratically accountable” (MacKinnon). This means that no company can provide
services to a country, which hinder their citizens, who do not have a democratically
elected body to govern laws and policies.
Close to home, internet providers want to drastically change how individuals
access the internet by lobbying congress to pass laws in their favor that will give them
complete control over their networks. Jeff Chester, Executive Director of the Center for
Digital Democracy asserted “The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies are
crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a private run and branded service that would charge a
free for virtually everything we do online.” (Chester). Currently there are many examples
of internet providers hindering their users’ access to the internet. Madison River
Telephone Co. in Illinois blocked users from using Vonage until the F.C.C intervened.
Clearwater in Kirkland Washington blocks services that use a lot of bandwidth, such as
streaming video sites and other sites that transfer mass amounts of data over the network.
Internet providers in 9 states lobbied for successful laws that limit how their users could
use their own personal computers (Chester).
Besides preventing users from certain aspects of the internet, internet providers
are also developing plans that would store all the information that users send over the
internet in a large database. Wealthy companies that paid internet providers the most
would get premier service and their content would get priority for bandwidth over smaller
companies that do not pay as much. Information that is undesirable would be limited to
the slower speed as well if not blocked completely. This plan would make users pay more
to use the internet. Internet providers plan on making different subscriptions plans that
would hinder users’ online enjoyment. They would implement multiple levels of internet
access which would set limits on downloading, streaming video and emails. The more
one pays the more access to the net they receive (Chester).
Works Cited:
Chardish “How the Internet Works – With Tubes” Slashdot
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/03/0643238
July 3, 2006
Chester, Jeffery, “The End of the Internet?” The Nation online, www.thenation.com
Clemmit, Marcia “Controlling the Internet” CQ Researcher May 12, 2006: 409-432.
Feb 1, 2006.
MacKinnon, Rebecca, “America’s Online Censors” The Nation online,
www.thenation.com Feb 24, 2006
Manjoo, Farhad, “One Cable Company to Rule Them All” Salon www.salon.com March
17, 2004
“Telecommunication act of 1996” Federal Communication Commission.
http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html 1996.
Thierer, Adam, “Who Rules the net?” Cato Institute, 2003.
“What is Net Neutrality” Save the Internet.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#what