Web Pioneer: No Internet Without Net Neutrality
September 28th, 2006 by tkarr |
The man who invented the World-Wide-Web sees the phone and cable company plan to gut Net Neutrality as a looming threat to free speech and economic innovation in America. In a New York Times interview, Internet pioneer Sir Tim Berners-Lee said that the neutrality of the Net is “essential for democracy.”
In the 1980s, Sir Tim first proposed the idea of linking documents with hypertext software pointers — a concept that evolved, in the 1990s, into the World Wide Web.
Throughout 2006, Berners-Lee has spoken passionately in favor of protecting Net Neutrality. In yesterday’s Times interview, he warned against companies, like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, that seek to remake the information superhighway into their private toll road.
“I think the people who talk about dismantling — threatening — Net neutrality don’t appreciate how important it has been for us to have an independent market for productivity and for applications on the Internet,” Berners-Lee said, adding that these companies seem incapable of adapting their outdated corporate cultures to the challenges of the Internet.
According to Berners-Lee, killing Net neutrality in the U.S. would put the country even further behind in the race to bridge the digital divide and bring cheaper, faster access and better economic opportunity to more people.
“[I]f the United States ends up faltering in its quest for Net neutrality, I think the rest of the world will be horrified, and there will be very strong pressure from other countries who will become a world separate from the U.S., where the Net is neutral,” Berners-Lee told Times interviewer John Markoff.
“If things go wrong in the States, then I think the result could be that the United States would then have a less-competitive market where content providers could provide a limited selection of all the same old movies to their customers because they have a captive market.”
Berners-Lee also clarifies the debate over service fees for special types of data, calling “not actually logical” people who say that Net Neutrality prevents “Quality of Service” upgrades:
“Some people say perhaps we ought to be able to charge more for this very special high-bandwidth connectivity. Of course that’s fine, charge more. Nobody is suggesting that you shouldn’t be able to charge more for a video-capable Internet connection. That’s no reason not to make it anything but neutral.”
Berners-Lee echoes SavetheInternet.com’s position against discrimination on the Web. We don’t think that it’s wrong for the network operators to be able to prioritize certain types of content. For instance, they can prioritize telemedicine over regular data files. The Net Neutrality rules that we and Berners-Lee support concern stopping discrimination based on the source or ownership of content.
If network operators favor one hospital’s telemedicine site over another, that’s the problem. That’s when the network operators can turn the Web into their private fiefdom, awarding fast-track services to their corporate allies while shunting all others to a slow lane. Under this scenario, the free and open Internet no longer exists.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
[…] The Save the Internet Blog just announced that the New York Times published an interview with Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of hypertext linked documents that we now call the Internet. The transcript of the Berners-Lee interview is available free from the Free Press. […]
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:53 am
just want to ask a question: this seems to be an american only thing. does this affect europe at all? cuz’ else i have no reason to do anything. if it DOEs directly affects europe, then why is this only going on in america? internt is worldwide, not just the U.S.A.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Boilman,
I think the issue with Europe will be that if the American companies are able to exert control of the internet here, that providers in Europe will follow suit seeing their “counterparts” success. Then in turn, move to other countries/regions, etc.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
I didn’t even think of that, CRA - though it’s an interesting point.
The “further behind” language that Berners-Lee used made me think that his point was that if the US governs internet use in ways that are comparatively stone-age (compared to those of Europe), then Europe’s business communities and information infrastructure will have a leg up on the US. I can see the US then losing ground to the EU in all sorts of business, tech, etc. due to our own legislation stifling our country’s productivity and ability in these arenas.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:37 am
TeeDub — By “stifling legislation” do you mean Congress’ wholesale giveaway of our communications rights to the largest phone and cable companies? That’s what’s happened. Our legislators have allowed for the rise of broadband monopolies in this country, which has stifled consumer Internet choice at prices per bit that far exceed other developed nations. As a result we’ve seen a market failure in America — where companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast not only control access for more than 98% of broadband customers, but also control the legislative process that governs this access. They’re now trying to do it again with a bill (Stevens HR5252) that guts Net Neutrality and hands over control of Internet content to these predatory telco and cable monopolists. The international leaders in broadband penetration (countries like South Korea, Canada and France) have attained their status through policies that protect market diversity and preserve Net Neutrality. There’s good legislation and bad. Stevens’ bill is the latter. It was written by Verizon, AT&T and Comcast lobbyists to serve their narrow financial interests at the expense of everyone else.
October 10th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Who is going to pay for bandwidth?
If a content provider wants to provide streaming video (for example) and if as a result of the providers’ increased popularity throughput is throttled. Who should pay for the up-grade to the data-carrying pipe? (in order to relieve the congestion)
Is it not fair to ask the provider for a usage based fee? If not will the US taxpayer foot the bill?
I don’t really care who pays the tab but someone has to step-up.
October 26th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
[…] Page Summary: Nobody is suggesting that you shouldn?t be able to charge more for a video-capable Internet connection. For instance, they can prioritize telemedicine over regular data files. That?s when the network operators can turn the Web into their private fiefdom, awarding fast-track services to their corporate allies while shunting all others to a slow lane. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.read more | digg story […]
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 am
full pay video poker…
…