""Net neutrality simply means you pay!"" That is what the National Cable & Telecommunications Association wants you to think anyway.
With more than a hint of irony, its catchy commercial, layered with clips of cross-eyed people from old movies, asks, ""Are you Google-eyed with confusion over net neutrality? No wonder...Net neutrality is nothing more than a scheme by the multi-billion dollar Silicon Valley tech companies.""
The commercial does little to clear up this confusion, since it does not even define what net neutrality is. The aim of NCTA is clearly to generate a negative image of net neutrality in the minds of average, uninformed Americans.
The NCTA's decision to launch these misleading commercials is not surprising. It's in the financial interest of the Internet service providers' lobby to conjure public support for defeating the net neutrality legislation currently pending in Congress.
However, the passage of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006 would be beneficial to all Internet users (if perhaps not so to the bottom line of telecommunication companies) in terms of providing a level playing field and facilitating the open exchange of ideas the internet is meant to foster.
Network neutrality is the principle the government should regulate Internet service providers to ensure that they treat all Internet traffic the same regardless of its ""source"" or ""destination.""
This may sound dense and technical, but in practice it means companies like Verizon would be prevented from discriminating between companies like Google, which can afford to pay for better or faster service to its Internet users, and other websites that cannot or do not choose to pay.
Net neutrality advocates argue legislation is necessary to prevent big companies from limiting speedy and equitable Internet access to the biggest and wealthiest players on the Internet, shutting out new Web material that could have been developed and made available to a wider audience if they did not lack the money.
Some opponents of net neutrality will argue it is a solution in search of a problem. However, there is real potential for large telecommunication companies such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast to begin discriminating between websites and limiting access. In a recent interview with Business Week, the CEO of SBC Communications (AT&T's parent company) asked, ""Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because the cable companies and we have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!""
This makes it clear that Internet providers have more than hypothetical plans to profit from their newfound opportunity. Anyway, why would telecommunication companies spend millions of dollars on commercials to persuade the public to oppose net neutrality if they had no plans to take advantage of the resulting lack of regulation?
It is important to consider the ramifications of allowing the Internet providers to charge whatever they want. It could potentially cut off educational opportunities for millions of students, prevent access to life-saving drugs for senior citizens, and cut off the flow of information for emergency workers who depend on speedy access to maps to get where they need to go.
Many other countries, including the United Kingdom, South Korea and Japan already guarantee net neutrality, and the lack of this legislation in the United States puts our start-up companies at a competitive disadvantage with those countries'. Furthermore, even if large telecom companies obtain more profits by charging websites a premium for better access, there is no evidence they would pass any savings onto the consumers.
In the past, well-funded special interests have defeated many ideas and legislation that would have benefited the public good by employing misinformation campaigns, confusing American citizens and politicians alike. Let's let common sense prevail and support free flow of information on the Internet.
