Tollbooths on the Internet Highway

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/opinion/20mon1.html?hp The New York Times 
February 20, 2006

Editorial

When you use the Internet today, your browser glides from one Web site to 
another, accessing all destinations with equal ease. That could change 
dramatically, however, if Internet service providers are allowed to tilt the 
playing field, giving preference to sites that pay them extra and penalizing 
those that don't.

The Senate held hearings last week on "network neutrality," the principle 
that I.S.P.'s - the businesses like Verizon or Roadrunner that deliver the 
Internet to your computer - should not be able to stack the deck in this 
way. If the Internet is to remain free, and freely evolving, it is important 
that neutrality legislation be passed.

In its current form, Internet service operates in the same nondiscriminatory 
way as phone service. When someone calls your home, the telephone company 
puts through the call without regard to who is calling. In the same way, 
Internet service providers let Web sites operated by eBay, CNN or any other 
company send information to you on an equal footing. But perhaps not for 
long. It has occurred to the service providers that the Web sites their 
users visit could be a rich new revenue source. Why not charge eBay a fee 
for using the Internet connection to conduct its commerce, or ask Google to 
pay when customers download a video? A Verizon Communications executive 
recently sent a scare through cyberspace when he said at a 
telecommunications conference, as The Washington Post reported, that Google 
"is enjoying a free lunch" that ought to be going to providers like Verizon.

The solution, as far as the I.S.P.'s are concerned, could be what some 
critics are calling "access tiering," different levels of access for 
different sites, based on ability and willingness to pay. Giants like 
Walmart.com could get very fast connections, while little-guy sites might 
have to settle for the information superhighway equivalent of a one-lane, 
pothole-strewn road. Since many companies that own I.S.P.'s, like Time 
Warner, are also in the business of selling online content, they could give 
themselves an unfair advantage over their competition.

If access tiering takes hold, the Internet providers, rather than consumers, 
could become the driving force in how the Internet evolves. Those 
corporations' profit-driven choices, rather than users' choices, would 
determine which sites and methodologies succeed and fail. They also might be 
able to stifle promising innovations, like Internet telephony, that compete 
with their own business interests.

Most Americans have little or no choice of broadband I.S.P.'s, so they would 
have few options if those providers shifted away from neutrality. Congress 
should protect access to the Internet in its current form. Senator Ron 
Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, says he intends to introduce an Internet 
neutrality bill, which would prohibit I.S.P.'s from favoring content 
providers that paid them fees, or from giving priority to their own content.

Some I.S.P.'s are phone and cable companies that make large campaign 
contributions, and are used to getting their way in Washington. But 
Americans feel strongly about an open and free Internet. Net neutrality is 
an issue where the public interest can and should trump the special 
interests.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company 


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html