'Net Pains

Keeping the Web free will keep us free.

by Mary Wilson

Several weeks ago, a federal hearing was held at Harvard Law School to address Comcast's interference with subscriber Internet traffic. Comcast had been accused of "blocking" (or slowing to the point of malfunction) traffic on specific sites and applications, and the hearing was intended to be an open forum for media groups and the public to voice their concerns. Unfortunately, very few voices were heard. When concerned citizens arrived four hours early for the hearing, they found about three dozen unconcerned citizens had beaten them to it. These people had no idea what the hearing was even about. They were there because Comcast had paid them to fill seats — and, ostensibly, to keep public opposition out in the cold.

Censorship of a different kind has become the goal of many large Internet service providers (ISP). Companies such as AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner have been vigorously lobbying Congress to allow them to create "tiers of service" in which certain Web sites would be quicker to access than others. Content providers would then be charged fees to be placed in the fast lane, leaving everyone else to languish in the dirty back roads — the long tail, if you will — of the Internet.

When the Internet came into being, this was illegal under the Communications Act. But in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that "cable companies that sell broadband Internet service do not provide 'telecommunications service' as the Communications Act defines that term," and are therefore exempt from the rules that formerly governed them. Although the FCC currently prohibits operators from blocking content altogether, a loophole provides exemption for "reasonable management." This means there's nothing to prevent ISPs from slowing traffic on specific Web sites as long as they can offer an excuse.

This type of meddling would be devastating. No longer would content and services be favored solely for their merit or popularity. The Internet would become more like cable TV, with a small handful of network providers favoring the voices of an equally small number of corporations. Unexpected success stories like Friendster, Reddit and Google (all created by people much younger than 30) would be a thing of the past, since future kids with bright ideas probably won't have the money to make them succeed. Entrepreneurship would be discouraged, competition extinguished and bloggers could be priced out of existence.

Fortunately, some members of Congress are taking steps to prevent this. In February, Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 (HR 5353). If passed, this bipartisan bill would take steps toward protecting Net neutrality — the principle that Web content should be equally available, independent of any fee system and regardless of its political content. It calls for a reassessment of discriminatory practices by network providers and would require at least eight "broadband summits" to collect public input on policies "that will promote openness, competition [and] innovation" in Internet services.

The bill doesn't contain specific prohibitions, but it does draw attention to the forces that are currently threatening Net neutrality, with the goal of rallying the public and spurring more reluctant lawmakers to action. In particular, the bill requires Congress to revisit the issue of "whether broadband network providers add charges for quality of service," and whether such fees are illegal under the Communications Act of 1934. (By some estimates, they are.)

This is a crucial moment for the future of the Internet. Consumer organizations, free media advocates, bloggers and entrepreneurs have spoken out in support of this bill, and we should all urge Congress to do the same. With so many debates raging today, we can't afford to lose our last open forum.

Mary Wilson is a City Paper contributor.