Internet's End
Net Neutrality was a very simple concept that produced two useful conditions. It provided a level playing field upon which all entities were offered an equal opportunity to succeed within the confines of the network. But also, and perhaps more importantly, it made the end points - the content producer and the content consumer - responsible for the nature of the traffic on the network.
This last point is important for two reasons. Firstly the users could make the choice of which traffic deserved priority (that is, their choices decided the distribution of data and this democratic pressure shaped the network). Secondly, the carrier of the traffic was never held responsible for the actions of its users, thus protecting free speech online while also provided a clear path of accountability with regards to illegal activity. Now, with the end of Network neutrality within grasp of the carriers, we will see the end of clear accountability and the end of the democratic Internet.
For the moment, let's set aside the issue of carriers like AT&T extorting money from service providers like Google, who are already paying for the bandwidth they use. Lets also set aside the fact that the double whammy of charges will be a disincentive to those with new services and new ideas to offer, that this will stifle innovation. And we cannot forget that this could end independent IPTV even before it's begun. These things are a disturbing promise but, if you can imagine, not the most worrisome.
The issue of responsibility is far more pressing. You see, if the carriers win this and bring about the end of neutrality, not only will they be able to control the traffic traversing their potion of the Internet, but they could well find themselves under pressure to exert that control beyond the simple economic demands of a tiered system. It is not enough to say the Slow Tier is going to remain free and that it's merely access to the Fast Tier that will be controlled. The fact that the carriers will have provided themselves the ability to discriminate the sources and destinations of any traffic means that they have the capacity to identify and shape all traffic, and with that comes the potential accountability for not doing it.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, since they have control, they will be under a legal and (some may argue) ethical obligation to exercise that control. The no-brainer example of this, and the one that will most likely be trotted out to force a carrier's hand, would be the restriction of access to sources of indecent images of children. Very noble, I think we can all agree, but also very misguided - if the carriers make themselves responsible for this sort of content then perhaps they deserve the ensuing nightmare, you may think. But what happens when such responsibility extends to political content, or religious, or...
Okay, here's a disturbing connection: what if the promised restrictions on the reporting of Anti-IED technology through the press are extended to network carriers? Will some pages of Wikipedia suddenly become inaccessible, will defence and technology sites have to limit their content for fear of being blocked?
If the carriers start acting as content filters then we face the very real possibility that they could be used as a way of bypassing civil liberties and defeating free speech, limiting the nature of the information that reaches the public without having to deal directly with those who's voices are subsequently silenced. In effect the whole Internet could become an edited publication, a walled garden, no longer a common ground of freedom but rather a state and corporate-controlled medium where only the most innocuous information may be transmitted. Certainly there will be small sites who can say what they like simply because they are beneath regard, but as soon as their outspokenness draws the attention of someone who might be offended or threatened their message will be lost to everyone.
With this in mind, one has to wonder if Google's questionable actions in China were not simply a rehearsal for the coming order in the US.
savetheinternet.com
This last point is important for two reasons. Firstly the users could make the choice of which traffic deserved priority (that is, their choices decided the distribution of data and this democratic pressure shaped the network). Secondly, the carrier of the traffic was never held responsible for the actions of its users, thus protecting free speech online while also provided a clear path of accountability with regards to illegal activity. Now, with the end of Network neutrality within grasp of the carriers, we will see the end of clear accountability and the end of the democratic Internet.
For the moment, let's set aside the issue of carriers like AT&T extorting money from service providers like Google, who are already paying for the bandwidth they use. Lets also set aside the fact that the double whammy of charges will be a disincentive to those with new services and new ideas to offer, that this will stifle innovation. And we cannot forget that this could end independent IPTV even before it's begun. These things are a disturbing promise but, if you can imagine, not the most worrisome.
The issue of responsibility is far more pressing. You see, if the carriers win this and bring about the end of neutrality, not only will they be able to control the traffic traversing their potion of the Internet, but they could well find themselves under pressure to exert that control beyond the simple economic demands of a tiered system. It is not enough to say the Slow Tier is going to remain free and that it's merely access to the Fast Tier that will be controlled. The fact that the carriers will have provided themselves the ability to discriminate the sources and destinations of any traffic means that they have the capacity to identify and shape all traffic, and with that comes the potential accountability for not doing it.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, since they have control, they will be under a legal and (some may argue) ethical obligation to exercise that control. The no-brainer example of this, and the one that will most likely be trotted out to force a carrier's hand, would be the restriction of access to sources of indecent images of children. Very noble, I think we can all agree, but also very misguided - if the carriers make themselves responsible for this sort of content then perhaps they deserve the ensuing nightmare, you may think. But what happens when such responsibility extends to political content, or religious, or...
Okay, here's a disturbing connection: what if the promised restrictions on the reporting of Anti-IED technology through the press are extended to network carriers? Will some pages of Wikipedia suddenly become inaccessible, will defence and technology sites have to limit their content for fear of being blocked?
If the carriers start acting as content filters then we face the very real possibility that they could be used as a way of bypassing civil liberties and defeating free speech, limiting the nature of the information that reaches the public without having to deal directly with those who's voices are subsequently silenced. In effect the whole Internet could become an edited publication, a walled garden, no longer a common ground of freedom but rather a state and corporate-controlled medium where only the most innocuous information may be transmitted. Certainly there will be small sites who can say what they like simply because they are beneath regard, but as soon as their outspokenness draws the attention of someone who might be offended or threatened their message will be lost to everyone.
With this in mind, one has to wonder if Google's questionable actions in China were not simply a rehearsal for the coming order in the US.
savetheinternet.com