In light of the FCC’s extremely passive take on
“network neutrality” (see
FCC deregulates DSL and How Martin’s FCC is different from Powell’s), it is worth taking a moment to examine
the importance of network neutrality to libraries. Some good background
can be found here:
Neutral Ground: As Web Providers’ Clout Grows, Fears Over Access Take Focus
by Amy Schatz and Anne Marie Squeo.
Wall Street Journal
Aug 8, 2005. pg. A.1 (Eastern edition). [subscription required]
The issue arises because broadband network service providers have the
technical ability to filter, slow, encumber, and block users’ access to
the web, web sites, individual web pages, particular kinds of services
or files….
While there are some legitimate reasons for some of this (such
as blocking spam and computer viruses and prioritizing time-sensitive
transfers over simple downloads), there are no regulations that define
what such legitimate activities are.
The issue, therefore, is: should the FCC regulate and require Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) to provide “network neutrality”? Should regulations define what ISPs can and cannot do in the area of filtering, slowing and blocking access? Should ISPs,
such as cable companies and telephone companies, be required by
regulation to provide “neutral” network access — all network packets
being treated equally — with exceptions spelled out?
Or should ISPs be
allowed to decide on their own how and when to use their technical
ability to watch network traffic and treat different kinds of traffic
differently, or traffic from some web sites differently from others, and
so forth. Should they be able to charge differently for different kinds
of network traffic or use of different kinds of devices attached to the
network?
The issue is important to libraries because library services could be impaired or blocked by ISP activities. This would be a particular problem if
ISPs with corporate connections to commercial content-providers wanted to
deprecate service to “free” services and content provided by libraries, or if
governments wanted to restrict access to certain web sites or certain kinds of content.
Here are examples of what has been done:
- Comcast, one of the biggest cable companies, blocked certain political email claiming they identified the messages as spam.
- An Alabama ISP blocked all Internet phone service traffic over its network when that traffic was from a rival phone
company. - A Canadian ISP blocked one million high-speed Internet
subscribers from accessing an Internet site operated by union members
engaged in a contract dispute. - A small South Dakato ISP
charge customers an extra $5 to $15 a month if they use an Internet phone service or online videogames. - Some ISPs charge consumers extra to attach Internet phones, videogame systems and other devices.
Is this a big problem?
Opponents of regulation say these are isolated examples and ‘the market’
will prevent ISPs from abusing their position to control Internet access.
Proponents of regulation acknowledge
there isn’t a problem now, but say there might be.
The problem is not limited to commercial network providers, however. With the technical
ability to filter content (at the ISP level or the PC level) comes attempts
to monitor, block, or otherwise control Internet use.
Some countries, notably China, routinely block access to some Internet
sites. Federal law (The Children’s Internet Protection Act) requires libraries under some conditions to
use filtering software to block access to material that is
“obscene.” Some universities have monitored network traffic and blocked
access to file sharing services. The U.S. government has blacklisted
web sites (see U.S. Government blacklists Sites On Cuba.
So, on the one hand, you have an increasing technical ability to filter
and control access to the Internet. Additionally, you have examples of just
such filtering and control and the imposition of additional costs to consumers.
Now you have the FCC missing an opportunity to require network neutrality and
instead listing unenforceable “principles” — principles that themselves are overloaded with caveats and exceptions big enough to allow ISPs great latitude
in controlling content. What will the future bring? Will libraries and library uses have access to an open, free Internet unencumbered by commercial or political interests?
Related posts: