I guess different people have different definitions of ‘freedom.’ But John McCain’s ‘Internet Freedom Act‘ scares the bejeezus out of me.
As a blogger and avid Internet user, it’s no surprise that I’m absolutely 100% pro-Net Neutrality. I don’t want the telephone companies to tier the Internet and force me to pay extra fees and packages just to access sites or watch a video online. If the government has to step in and reiterate my right to access information online unhindered by a greedy corporation, I’m perfectly fine with that.
So why is John McCain, a man who once described himself as technologically illiterate and doesn’t use email, trying to block the FCC from protecting Americans’ rights to access the Internet? Maybe he doesn’t know any better. A guy who doesn’t use email probably doesn’t realize the severe negative impact this act would have on the lives of every American. Then again, the cynic in me also recognizes that he’s the senator with the most telco lobby money in his pocket. That ‘could’ be a major factor.
The part that frightens me the most about the ‘Internet Freedom Act’ is its incredibly misleading name. It suggests to those unsavvy about the issue of Net Neutrality that the act protects them by keeping the Internet ‘free.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. By using vague yet charged terms like ‘freedom,’ it baits our soundbite driven news networks and erects a fire-shield to protect the act from criticism. “Oh, you don’t like the Internet Freedom Act? Why do you hate freedom?”
McCain’s press release specifically mentions that Google and Yahoo! reported positive earnings this month. This is intended to trick readers into thinking their success would not have been possible had there been FCC regulations. This is just plain wrong. The FCC would merely preserve Net Neutrality, which is currently threatened by the telcos and have led to the success of the companies that McCain touts. Companies like Google and Yahoo! are only able to grow because they haven’t yet been throttled and taxed to death by the telcos. Without the FCC holding the telcos at bay, the profits of companies like Google and Yahoo! will be hurt. Essentially, McCain showcases two successful companies in order to argue that we should stifle their growth while creating the illusion that he’s actually supporting them.
Without Net Neutrality, the telcos will basically be given free reign to tier the Internet in the same way that certain channels on TV are currently restricted unless you get ‘sports packages’ or ‘movie packages.’ Do you really want to pay more to visit CNN.com? How about paying a premium for access to ESPN.com? What if you wanted to stream an NFL game and found yourself having to pay two sets of fees: one for the website and another to the Internet provider? What if you could only watch 10 videos on YouTube per day because your bandwidth was capped? Sometimes, words aren’t enough. Sometimes, you need a visual representation to really drive home the point.
Putting aside the inconvenience of fees for a moment, let’s think about what a lack of Net Neutrality does on a socioeconomic level. What happens when the rich have all the information while the poor only get limited information? Maybe the poor do worse in school because they can’t research online as well. Maybe the poor don’t have a fast pass to their job search because LinkedIn is blocked. This is already happening to an extent in the current setup, and it creates enormous challenges in education and business. Further stratification of the Internet would widen the divide between elite and poor and further exacerbate class issues.
Think back to the most recent election. So many issues were discussed on forums, blogs, and social networks. For many Americans, this was the only way to get a balanced view of the issues. Now imagine if all the poor Americans didn’t have any access to this information because they couldn’t afford to pay an additional $50/month to access political blogs.
Finally, let’s not forget that the Internet was a project that grew out of DARPA and ARPA in the 60s intended to protect the United States in case of nuclear war. By building a giant network of computers with data shared in a metaphorical cloud, sensitive information was no longer clustered in one location and therefore couldn’t be easily wiped out by a nuke or terrorist attack. Some have argued that McCain’s bill basically betrays National Security by outsourcing gate keeping duties to greedy telcos.
In order to explain to someone why Net Neutrality is good for them and good for America, you have to write paragraphs, provide scenarios, and use a lot of historical and technical arguments. On the other hand, opponents of Net Neutrality are basically leveraging the word ‘freedom’ to trick people into supporting an act that restricts access to the Internet, hurts America’s tech sector, and stifles innovation. The challenge ahead of us is huge. Let’s save the Internet.
Related Posts:
