[governance] the continuing NN debate

[Parminder]

I know there has been a surfeit of NN news, but this is something forwarded
to me by somehow who has been passively following the debate. And I think it
is useful to illustrate that 'how we see' determines 'what we do' vis-à-vis
the Internet as with everything else. I say this in connection with call for
a framework convention on the Internet to determine the principles of how we
see the Internet and what we expect it to do...

Parminder 


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082006B.shtml 

Congress Poised to Unravel the Internet 
    By Jeffrey Chester 
    The Nation 

    Friday 18 August 2006 

    Lured by huge checks handed out by the country's top lobbyists, members
of Congress could soon strike a blow against Internet freedom as they seek
to resolve the hot-button controversy over preserving "network neutrality."
The telecommunications reform bill now moving through Congress threatens to
be a major setback for those who hope that digital media can foster a more
democratic society. The bill not only precludes net neutrality safeguards
but also eliminates local community oversight of digital communications
provided by cable and phone giants. It sets the stage for the privatized,
consolidated and unregulated communications system that is at the core of
the phone and cable lobbies' political agenda. 

    In both the House and Senate versions of the bill, Americans are
described as "consumers" and "subscribers," not citizens deserving
substantial rights when it comes to the creation and distribution of digital
media. A handful of companies stand to gain incredible monopoly power from
such legislation, especially AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon. They
have already used their political clout in Washington to secure for the
phone and cable industries a stunning 98 percent control of the US
residential market for high-speed Internet. 

    Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens, the powerful Commerce Committee
chair, is trying to line up votes for his "Advanced Telecommunications and
Opportunities Reform Act." It was Stevens who called the Internet a "series
of tubes" as he tried to explain his bill. Now the subject of well-honed
satirical jabs from The Daily Show, as well as dozens of independently made
videos, Stevens is hunkering down to get his bill passed by the Senate when
it reconvenes in September. 

    But thanks to the work of groups like Save the Internet, many Senate
Democrats now oppose the bill because of its failure to address net
neutrality. (Disclosure: The Center for Digital Democracy, where I work, is
a member of that coalition.) Oregon Democrat Senator Ron Wyden, Maine
Republican Olympia Snowe and South Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan have joined
forces to protect the US Internet. Wyden has placed a "hold" on the bill,
requiring Stevens (and the phone and cable lobbies) to strong-arm sixty
colleagues to prevent a filibuster. But with a number of GOP senators in
tight races now fearful of opposing net neutrality, the bill's chances for
passage before the midterm election are slim. Stevens, however, may be able
to gain enough support for passage when Congress returns for a lame-duck
session. 

    Don't Ask, Don't Tell 

    Thus far, the strategy of the phone and cable lobbies has been to
dismiss concerns about net neutrality as either paranoid fantasies or
political discontent from progressives. "It's a made-up issue," AT&T CEO Ed
Whitacre said in early August at a meeting of state regulators. New
Hampshire Republican Senator John Sununu claims that net neutrality is "what
the liberal left have hung their hat on," suggesting that the outcry over
Internet freedom is more partisan than substantive. Other critics of net
neutrality, including many front groups, have tried to frame the debate
around unsubstantiated fears about users finding access to websites blocked,
pointing to a 2005 FCC policy statement that "consumers are entitled to
access the lawful Internet content of their choice." But the issue of
blocking has been purposefully raised to shift the focus from what should be
the real concerns about why the phone and cable giants are challenging
federal rules requiring nondiscriminatory treatment of digital content. 

    Verizon, Comcast and the others are terrified of the Internet as we know
it today. Net neutrality rules would jeopardize their far-reaching plans to
transform our digital communications system. Both the cable and phone
industries recognize that if their broadband pipes (now a monopoly) must be
operated in an open and neutral fashion, they will face real
competition--and drastically reduced revenues--from an ever-growing number
of lower-cost phone and video providers. Alcatel, a major technology company
helping Verizon and AT&T build their broadband networks, notes in one
business white paper that cable and phone companies are "really competing
with the Internet as a business model, which is even more formidable than
just competing with a few innovative service aggregators such as Google,
Yahoo and Skype." (Skype is a telephone service provider using the
Internet.) 

    Policy Racket 

    The goal of dominating the nation's principal broadband pipeline serving
all of our everyday (and ever-growing) communications needs is also a major
motivation behind opposition to net neutrality. Alcatel and other broadband
equipment firms are helping the phone and cable industries build what will
be a reconfigured Internet--one optimized to generate what they call "triple
play" profits from "high revenue services such as video, voice and
multimedia communications." Triple play means generating revenues from a
single customer who is using a bundle of services for phone, TV and PC--at
home, at work or via wireless devices. The corporate system emerging for the
United States (and elsewhere in the world) is being designed to boost how
much we spend on services, so phone and cable providers can increase what
they call our "ARPU" (average revenue per user). This is the "next
generation" Internet system being created for us, one purposefully designed
to facilitate the needs of a mass consumerist culture. 

    Absent net neutrality and other safeguards, the phone/cable plan seeks
to impose what is called a "policy-based" broadband system that creates
"rules" of service for every user and online content provider. How much one
can afford to spend would determine the range and quality of digital media
access. Broadband connections would be governed by ever-vigilant network
software engaged in "traffic policing" to insure each user couldn't exceed
the "granted resources" supervised by "admission control" technologies.
Mechanisms are being put in place so our monopoly providers can
"differentiate charging in real time for a wide range of applications and
events." Among the services that can form the basis of new revenues, notes
Alcatel, is online content related to "community, forums, Internet access,
information, news, find your way (navigation), marketing push, and health
monitoring." 

    Missing from the current legislative debate on communications is how the
plans of cable and phone companies threaten civic participation, the free
flow of information and meaningful competition. Nor do the House or Senate
versions of the bill insure that the public will receive high-speed Internet
service at a reasonable price. According to market analysts, the costs US
users pay for broadband service is more than eight times higher than what
subscribers pay in Japan and South Korea. (Japanese consumers pay a mere 75
cents per megabit. South Koreans are charged only 73 cents. But US users are
paying $6.10 per megabit. Internet service abroad is also much faster than
it is here.) 

    Why are US online users being held hostage to higher rates at slower
speeds? Blame the business plans of the phone and cable companies. As
technology pioneer Bob Frankston and PBS tech columnist Robert Cringely
recently explained , the phone and cable companies see our broadband future
as merely a "billable event." Frankston and Cringely urge us to be part of a
movement where we--and our communities--are not just passive generators of
corporate profit but proactive creators of our own digital futures. That
means we would become owners of the "last mile" of fiber wire, the key link
to the emerging broadband world. For about $17 a month, over ten years, the
high-speed connections coming to our homes would be ours--not in perpetual
hock to phone or cable monopolists. Under such a scenario, notes Cringely,
we would just pay around $2 a month for super-speed Internet access. 

    Regardless of whether Congress passes legislation in the fall,
progressives need to create a forward-looking telecom policy agenda. They
should seek to insure online access for low-income Americans, provide public
oversight of broadband services, foster the development of digital
communities and make it clear that the public's free speech rights online
are paramount. It's now time to help kill the Stevens "tube" bill and work
toward a digital future where Internet access is a right--and not dependent
on how much we can pay to "admission control."

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance