By Libby
Internet neutrality is one of those unsexy issues that I've found difficult to interest people in, mainly because they don't seem understand what's at stake when you allow the corporations to set up virtual toll booths on the information highway. I did a long series of posts on it at least a year ago at the Detroit News and encountered a surprising lack of concern, along with active resistance to requiring neutrality by regulation. Our relentless researcher Kat, sends me this link today that perhaps will make the importance of neutrality more apparent to the naysayers.
Some people use the Internet simply to check e-mail and look up phone numbers. Others are online all day, downloading big video and music files.
For years, both kinds of Web surfers have paid the same price for access. But now three of the country�s largest Internet service providers are threatening to clamp down on their most active subscribers by placing monthly limits on their online activity.
Time Warner has already set up a test metering system in one Texas city as a dry run for the concept. Comcast and AT&T are poised to follow in their footsteps.
In that trial, new customers can buy plans with a 5-gigabyte cap, a 20-gigabyte cap or a 40-gigabyte cap. Prices for those plans range from $30 to $50. Above the cap, customers pay $1 a gigabyte. Plans with higher caps come with faster service.
The corporations say average users won't be affected but they define average as someone who "merely send e-mail messages, check movie times and read the news." The stats on what they consider bandwidth hogging are more telling.
Streaming an hour of video on Hulu, which shows programs like �Saturday Night Live,� �Family Guy� and �The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,� consumes about 200 megabytes, or one-fifth of a gigabyte. A higher-quality hour of the same content bought through Apple�s iTunes store can use about 500 megabytes, or half a gigabyte.
A high-definition episode of �Survivor� on CBS.com can use up to a gigabyte, and a DVD-quality movie through Netflix�s new online service can eat up about five gigabytes. One Netflix download alone, in fact, could bring a user to the limit on the cheapest plan in Time Warner�s trial in Beaumont.
Even services like Skype and Vonage that use the Internet to transmit phone calls could help put users over the monthly limits.
Maybe I just travel in different circles than Comcast's average user, but what they call hoggers looks more like average use to me. I'd say this is another bait and switch; like when they promised cable rates would drop if we allowed media consolidation in the first place. Of course, the telecoms deny any nefarious intent.
But the companies imposing the caps say that their actions are only fair. People who use more network capacity should pay more, Time Warner argues. And Comcast says that people who use too much � like those who engage in file-sharing � should be forced to slow down.
Time Warner also frames the issue in financial terms: the broadband infrastructure needs to be improved, it says, and maybe metering could pay for the upgrades.
I love that qualifier maybe. It leaves them free to raise the rates also. And one wonders why they can't pay for their own damn upgrades. Time Warner's fourth quarter profits in 2007 were $1.03bn, while their overall revenue rose by 2% to $12.64bn. In 2004 doubled profits in one quarter. Did they invest any of those profits in necessary upgrades? Why no. Last August, they spent $5 billion buying back their own shares.
We're only talking about a tiered system for usage here, but it's a small step from there to censoring content, which has already happened in numerous instances where critical remarks about Bush have been edited out of live performances. Neither is it a great leap to imagine them eventually charging according to what sites you want to frequent which would seem to be a handy way to track where you go as well, without the bother of breaking the law on datamining.
Clearly, if we don't ensure neutrality by statute, we risk losing what makes the internets so valuable and powerful a tool for citizen activism. Without neutrality we lose the freedom to communicate freely outside of the dictates of the corporate gatekeepers. If we wait until it's lost, it will be too late. See Save the Internet for much more information and how you can help save our last remaining vestige of truly free mass expression.
This particular subject drives me nuts as well. As a comparison, all of the major internet companies in Canada have already set downloading caps, (though usually in the 80-100GB range), and they admit to "data-shaping" as a matter of course, and have apparently began to interfere with rivals' traffic going over their networks. The battle to get some kind of net neutrality legislation passed up here is ongoing, and likely doomed until we have a new government.
ReplyDeleteJust so you know why it pisses me off so much, my current plan has a limit of only 10GB, and they charge $0.02/MB, or $20 per GB for any overage, and the pricks don't bother warning you if you happen to be getting close to or over the limit. To say the least, I have to be very careful about video downloads. Isn't lack of competition wonderful?
Not good.
ReplyDeleteImagine what it would be like if every road in the United States was a toll road, and not only that, but you could insert potholes specifically for your competitor's car.
This is going to be a major problem.
It's frightening to me. Bloggers mostly get it, at least the non-wingers, and progressives get it but try to sell it to the average Jake in Detroit and it's so frustrating not to be able to articulate in a way that communicates the urgency. I couldn't possibly find the posts in their sucky archive system over there, if they even exist after the last upgrade, but I used ever analogy I could think of to try to convey it and no response. Disheartening.
ReplyDeleteBJ, your experience just increases my alarm.
John, how nice to see you here.
Rick from the Daily Grail here (g'day Cernig!). In Australia, we're being extorted by cyberhighway robbery. $60 for a 12gig limit, $80 for 25gig. When neighbours hacked my wireless last year, I got charged $240 for being only a mere several hundred megabytes over the limit. I'm still contesting that legally, and I'm not giving in. Telstra's Bigpond 'service' -- and I say that word with tongue firmly in cheek -- is a murky pond of extortion and ripoff-ery, and I'm sure they're planning the same crimes as Time Warner and AT&T.
ReplyDeleteJohn, terrific analogy. I'll use it whenever people's eyes glaze over when I'm telling them about 'net neutrality and how our last source of free information is going the way of the dodo. It's the public's apathy that's playing into the Big Corporation's pudgy, sweaty hands.
I don't find this surprising at all, this is exactly how internet providers in Australia have always operated.
ReplyDeleteI work for a telco called Telstra, which would be the Australian equivelent of AT&T in the US and the minimum broadband plan we sell is $30 per month for 200 MB @ 256 kbps (which barely even qualifies as a broadband connection these days) and excess usage charged @ 15c per MB. ($150 per gigabyte!)
The plans outlined in this article seem like pretty good value for me. Seems like Australians are getting screwed on the amount we pay for our data!
Jebus. I'm glad I don't live in Australia. I wouldn't be able to afford internet access. Wonder what your telecom's profit margins are?
ReplyDeleteCheck out some more information about Net Neutrality at http://web.illish.us Tune in to the web program where ever your at to keep the internet affordable in our means.
ReplyDelete