TMCnet News
Groups lobby for Internet neutrality law(San Diego Union-Tribune, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Jun. 19--The World Wide Web is a great equalizer. The digital bits that make up Joe's blog are treated the same as those that make up search engine behemoth Google. But an individual's blog takes up far less space on the information superhighway than big sites like Google or online auctioneer eBay. Therein lies the seed of a debate pitting Google, Microsoft and other titans of the digital age against telecom giants like Time Warner and AT&T. At stake is the future of the Internet. Those who provide the Internet pipes and their supporters think the bandwidth hogs should pay extra to guarantee them a zippy connection to customers. To prevent that from happening, Google, eBay, software maker Microsoft and other proponents of keeping the status quo are lobbying Congress to pass a law that would maintain "net neutrality" -- equal status for large and small Web sites. They want a law that would prohibit telecom and cable companies, which own the pipelines that carry the bulk of high-speed Internet traffic, from blocking or slowing down access to Web sites or from charging big bandwidth users a fee for priority access. The U.S. House of Representatives passed telecommunications legislation earlier this month that did not include net neutrality provisions, but it would give the Federal Communications Commission the power to investigate discrimination in online access. The Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to vote on its version of a communications bill Thursday.The committee has not yet finalized the net neutrality provision in its bill. If the legislation passes committee, the full Senate could vote as early as next month. House and Senate negotiators would have to combine the bills to present Congress with final legislation before it adjourns in the fall. Telecom and cable companies say that leaving the Internet unregulated has allowed them to experiment with new business models, leading to billions of dollars of investment in Internet infrastructure. They said a law directing net neutrality would stifle their ability to make new investments and try new business frameworks. Net neutrality proponents -- including unlikely allies MoveOn.org, Gun Owners of America and the Christian Coalition -- say that if the telecom and cable companies have their way, the Internet would turn into a digital highway where big Web sites that can afford to pay more would roar down the fast lanes, while the little sites would be relegated to the shoulders. "If we get into a tiered Internet where the big players are paying for priority access, it will really crush the bloggers, video podcasts and peer-to-peer networks that will be in the slow lane, the backroads of the Internet," said Lance Cottrell, founder of San Diego-based Anonymizer, whose products allow Web surfers to visit sites anonymously. Cottrell fears that a two-tiered Web of haves and have-nots could stifle innovation because, he said, Web startups would not necessarily have the financial means to buy access to the fast lane. Some proponents of net neutrality fear that the cable and telecom companies might one day block access entirely to big sites that don't pay higher fees. The Internet providers, however, said that is not going to happen. The AeA, formerly the American Electronics Association, a trade group of technology companies, favors net neutrality. "It's a system that is nondiscriminatory," said Kevin Carroll, executive director of the AeA's San Diego chapter. "It has allowed companies of all sizes to take advantage of what the Internet has to offer. It's important because it has provided the basis for growth." Opponents of a net neutrality law argue that somebody has to pay for the huge amounts of bandwidth used by the big sites. They say if Internet service providers aren't allowed to charge big Web sites extra for their higher-than-average bandwidth use, the cost of the extra capacity will be spread out among average consumers. Dan Prinzing, who owns Dr. Tandem Web Page Design in Encinitas, finds himself at odds with some of his peers. He compares the Internet giants with trucks on a freeway. "If you get enough big trucks on the freeway at the same time, then you'll have to build more capacity, and somebody's got to pay for it," he said. "If it's the big truckers taking up most of the road and being hard on the road, then they pay more in taxes and fees to compensate for us having to build more roads. Otherwise, the cost would have to be shifted to the average driver." Prinzing said both the big Web sites and the big Web users should have to pay a larger share of Internet costs rather than spreading the costs out equally to everyone. Chris Pond, chief executive of Network Insight, a Sorrento Valley company that designs, builds and operates communications networks, said Internet companies offer more bandwidth-intensive features these days, a trend that is growing. He said services such as voice over Internet Protocol, which sends telephone calls over the Net, would benefit if their bits were to get priority status because it would improve voice quality. "What I'm an advocate for is different rate plans for different usage," Pond said. Like other cable companies, Cox Communications doesn't see a need for government intervention. "Net neutrality is a solution longing for a problem," said Ceanne Guerra, spokeswoman for Cox's San Diego division. "We don't think there is a problem." |