By Ryan McBride and Marion Davis
When Robert Ballard and his team of scientists from the University of Rhode Island went on a deep-sea exploration trip in 2003, they put live footage of their adventure on the Internet, so people could download and watch it for free.
Beyond Cash Donations: How New Forms of Giving Are Transforming Not-for-Profit Accounting
Evolving Funding Landscape for Not-for-Profits Not-for-profit organizations are being asked to do more with less,…
Learn More
But if a telecommunications bill pending in the U.S. Senate is approved, the school might no longer be able to afford to share content like that on the Web, says George Loftus, executive director of Ocean State Higher Education Economic Development and Administrative Network (OSHEAN Inc.), the nonprofit consortium that is URI’s Internet service provider.
Loftus and many others in the Internet community – especially content providers and nonprofits – are concerned that, without a key amendment, the federal Telecommunications Act would permit the largest ISPs to give preferential treatment to those who can pay extra, creating a two-tier Internet or, even worse, to block access to some sites and services.
To prevent this, they’re pushing for a “Net neutrality” amendment that would require all Internet content to be treated equally.
In its most basic form, Net neutrality has allies even within the telecom industry. Verizon Communications, for example, has backed principles articulated by the High Tech Broadband Coalition that everyone should have access to the Internet, regardless of the hardware or application used.
However, stricter language now being proposed would limit how providers can manage traffic on their networks and impose penalties for violators. And that, said Verizon spokesman David Fish, could stifle the development of new applications and services.
“It makes no sense to deny consumers new options by putting a regulatory straitjacket on new fiber networks,” he said. “Both the Internet and the wireless sectors flourished precisely because they weren’t overregulated.”
Cox Communications has a similar view.
“The Internet is still, in many respects, in its infancy in terms of its vast potential,” said Cox spokeswoman Leigh Ann Woisard. “We want the flexibility to take advantage of this potential without being bound by regulation that would stifle innovation.”
Net neutrality legislation, she said, is “a cure in desperate search of an illness.
Cox “has not and will not block or impede its customers’ access to any legal Internet content,” Woisard said, because it has to keep its customers happy, and limiting their Internet access would degrade the service.
As for setting up a tiered system, she said: “Cox has one network and one broadband pipe, and we have no plans to own and operate a tiered system that would shuttle Internet traffic over two separate networks that use two different technologies.”
Advocates of Net neutrality protections, however, don’t trust ISPs to do as they say they will. Their fears were fueled last fall by AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre – then CEO of SBC Telecommunications – with a statement he made to Business Week, when asked about his view of such Internet upstarts as Google, MSN and Vonage.
“What they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that, because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it,” Whitacre said. “So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?”
In response, a wide range of content providers and Internet-based companies such as Google and eBay have launched campaigns to persuade Congress to protect network neutrality.
MoveOn.org has launched a campaign, dubbed “Save the Internet,” warning that the telecom bill being considered by Congress “would end the free and open Internet as we know it.” Only Net neutrality, the group warns, “prevents AT&T from choosing which Web sites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more.”
The general sentiment among those active on the Internet is pro-Net neutrality.
Asked for her stance, Anne Holland, president and founder of MarketingSherpa, a Warren-based company that publishes books and online newsletters about e-marketing, said “open and available Internet access for consumers, marketers, students and content producers is critical to our future as a state.”
“Net neutrality affects far more Rhode Island businesses than most dream of, because online now pushes offline sales,” she wrote in an e-mail. “MarketingSherpa research indicates that more than 60 percent of consumers conduct online research before they buy things over $100.”
In addition, Holland said, the Internet “is the last bargain, when it comes to marketing to tourists all over the world,” and it’s an increasingly important resource for the schools.
Net neutrality advocates have won over U.S. Representatives Patrick J. Kennedy and James R. Langevin, both Rhode Island Democrats, who voted against the House version of the telecom bill.
U.S. Senators Lincoln C. Chafee and Jack Reed, however, have not yet taken a position on the issue. Reed spokesman Chip Unruh noted that the bill isn’t expected to make it to the Senate floor this year, anyway.
Meanwhile, SavetheInternet.com reports that all the senators known to oppose Net neutrality measures are Republicans and most of their advocates are Democrats – though Maine Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe led a failed effort in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to put stronger Net neutrality protections in the Senate bill.
But Fish, of Verizon, said the Net neutrality debate has held up the passage of legislation that is important to his company for other reasons, and that could benefit consumers.
The bill would streamline the “video franchise” approval process nationally, making it easier for competitors to enter the cable TV market, Fish said. Because consumers want lower prices and higher quality, the bill is “very popular,” he said, whereas “few voters care” about the Net neutrality debate.
Noting that some senators have threatened to filibuster the telecom bill if it doesn’t contain Net neutrality protections, Fish concluded: “Filibuster threats have their place in our system of government, but it seems silly to block this consumer-friendly measure.”
OSHEAN’s Loftus disagrees. Rhode Island’s small businesses – and the research, educational and public-service community his nonprofit serves – have much to lose if the telecom bill is approved without the Net neutrality protections, he said.
“If we give that kind of power to companies that control the [Internet] pipes into just about every home in America,” Loftus said, “then I think we are giving up what was one of the essential principles of the Internet – which was that it was open and accessible to all.”
