I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
ALBUQUERQUE — An axiom of our world is that things have sped up. The effect has increased exponentially with each passing generation, and for many of us who came of age in the 1980s and 1990s we’ve seen and felt it proceed at almost mach speed. In many ways, it’s due to increases in productivity — we can produce more because our transportation and information infrastructure is incredibly quicker and more efficient than it used to be.
Much of this has to do with the Internet, which has changed how we communicate drastically, becoming an essential aspect of how we participate in both our democracy and our economy. Providing us with instant communication — of all sorts — the Internet is a virtual superhighway, facilitating the exchange of both our ideas and our commerce, not to mention serving as an innovation platform for both large and small enterprises. Plus, in a very important way, it’s opened up the world in general for those outside the jet-set.
And while still fairly new, those of us who have access to it now already in large measure take it for granted.
But maybe we shouldn’t.
As it turns out, our access to the Internet is for the most part provided by large private telephone and cable companies. In most markets, you have to choose between one or the other as your Internet service provider, or “ISP.” In this way they’re like a duopoly — which means Internet access is controlled in most areas by just a couple of companies. Like the telecommunications industry in general, which has consolidated from 50 controlling companies in 1984 to about six today, it’s hardly a highly competitive market.
And many fear this structure threatens the “neutrality” of the Internet. The term “net neutrality,” in essence, refers to the idea that in order to be most useful, the Internet shouldn’t discriminate among users. Tim Wu, a Columbia Law School professor, uses the analogy of an electric grid:
The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally… A useful way to understand this principle is to look at other networks, like the electric grid, which are implicitly built on a neutrality theory. The general purpose and neutral nature of the electric grid is one of the things that make it extremely useful. The electric grid does not care if you plug in a toaster, an iron, or a computer. Consequently it has survived and supported giant waves of innovation in the appliance market. The electric grid worked for the radios of the 1930s, works for the flat screen TVs of the 2000s. For that reason the electric grid is a model of a neutral, innovation-driving network.
The theory behind the network neutrality principle, which the Internet sometimes gets close to, is that a neutral network should be expected to deliver the most to a nation and the world economically, by serving as an innovation platform, and socially, by facilitating the widest variety of interactions between people.
The Internet, in fact, has been “neutral,” also sometimes referred to as “equal,” from its inception. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, a physicist who many credit with the creation of the Internet, says the concept of neutrality isn’t new: “It’s not a new opinion and it’s one thing that is shared by such a huge majority, if you like, an unwritten assumption of the entire Internet culture. Someone actually thought to challenge it.”
Indeed, as the Internet becomes used more and more, and as media such as television and telephones merge with computers, control of the Internet and the concept of neutrality is increasingly becoming a highly charged political debate.
The looming issue
Given the rapid innovation of digital technology and the degree to which the Internet has quickly become so widespread and central to how we communicate, the physical infrastructure used to transmit digital data packets, called “bandwidth,” has gone from having a great degree of capacity to being in some cases almost maxed out at times. ISPs claim they are now having to manage traffic to avoid congestion that slows the Internet down for everyone.
ISP’s have started floating ideas about charging content providers differing rates in order to connect their products to consumers. In other words, if you want someone to be able to access your data-heavy content, like movies or videos on peer-to-peer networks, you’ll need to pay more. And in return your content will be transmitted in the “fast lane.” Those who don’t pay will be relegated to the “slow lane.” And consumers could then expect to see those new fees passed along to them.
The ISP’s say its only fair; they have to pay for the bandwidth upgrades that are sure to come as more and more data-heavy content is produced, so those who use the most bandwidth should pay more to keep it upgraded, they say.
This idea is referred to by many as a “tiered system” and is an example of how Internet service providers can potentially control the commerce of the Internet. Such control has already happened in arbitrary ways. Just last year Comcast slowed down the traffic of a peer-to-peer web company called BitTorrent. They didn’t announce they were doing it — people just started noticing. Comcast said they had to do it because the BitTorrent traffic was clogging the system. Others saw it as an arbitrary infringement, though, on the ability of BitTorrent to engage in commerce.
In the ensuing debate, Comcast has bluntly pointed out, as this article in PC Magazine describes, that the FCC has jurisdiction but no power over how they manage their networks:
In a March 7 FCC filing, David L. Cohen, Comcast executive vice president, said that the FCC “cannot lawfully issue an injunction against Comcast with regard to the provision of Internet services.”
The commission’s principles are not laws, so even if the FCC were to rule that Comcast violated those principles, the FCC does not have the power to do anything about it, according to Cohen.
The BitTorrent case gets at the heart of fears about the future neutrality of the Internet. Mainly, that a tiered system, or one that allows arbitrary management of Web networks, will bar small entrepreneurial businesses from being able to compete with the big companies that have plenty of resources to pay for the “fast lane.” And nonprofits and many other types of information providers will find it more difficult to get their message out to the public.
Some argue that the competition and communication that the Internet has fostered — the kind that led to Google, Ebay and Amazon — would be greatly lessened if the biggest ISPs get their way. Not to mention, as the ISP’s start providing their own content and also control content delivery, they may be in a position to favor their own products over others.
This issue is increasingly making waves in Congress. Advocates of neutrality say legislators need to adopt rules that mandate regulatory authority for the FCC over Internet provision, or that clearly prohibit ISPs from blocking or slowing down the content of those who use their networks. On the other side are those who say such actions are a solution waiting for a problem. Isolated instances like that of Comcast don’t indicate a problem, they say, and introducing regulation would erect barriers to companies who might want to become ISP’s in the future.
New Mexico’s future congressional delegation
The New Mexico Independent was curious about what those who are running for federal office in New Mexico think about the issue. As it turned out, Democratic contenders were all informed on the topic and knew where they stood. Conversely, none of the Republicans running for Congress responded to the inquiry. They either declined to comment because of the complexity of the issue or declined all comment. First Congressional District candidate Darren White refused to respond despite several requests.
Democrat Ben Ray Lujan, who is running for the Third Congressional District seat, said corporations shouldn’t be “gatekeepers of the Internet” and that a tiered system would stall innovation and slow growth. “I’ve been very vocal when it comes to companies ensuring access is there for all New Mexicans, and will be just as vocal about keeping the Internet open,” he said.
Lujan also was the only person who spoke directly to the issue of capacity. He told the Independent that Internet access should be viewed as a responsibility of government as well as private industry. If capacity isn’t being met, he said, state and federal government should work together and look at ways to having funding mechanisms in place to ensure capacity creation while protecting neutrality.
Martin Heinrich, who is running against Darren White in CD1, emphasized that the Internet is a “democratic medium” that everyone should be able to access. “It is vital to our economy that we protect small businesses and their access to bandwidth,” he said. “Net neutrality is a complex issue for government to address, but we must continue to ensure the Constitution is upheld and corporations do not dictate freedom of expression.”
In the Second Congressional District, Democrat Harry Teague said that unimpaired access to the Internet was essential in order for the southern New Mexico workforce to successfully meet the demands of the “21st century economy.” He said he would “fight to maintain net neutrality” because “if network owners discriminate against content providers, it will make it more difficult for New Mexicans to experience the benefits of the Internet.”
Running for the Senate seat being vacated by Pete Domenici, Democrat Tom Udall said not only was he a supporter of net neutrality, but that he was a co-sponsor of past legislation to ensure its protection. “I believe that Internet providers should not control lawful consumer use of their networks,” he said. “Nor should they be able to create tiered access to those networks. Having previously served on the Small Business Committee for eight years, I have concerns over what would happen to New Mexico’s small businesses if Internet service providers were able to impose tolls… I will continue to support legislation that will keep the Internet open equally to all users.”
Looking ahead to legislation in the Senate, the Independent also wanted to know where U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman stood. The Silver City Democrat said he too supported net neutrality, and would continue to do so. “I supported legislation in the 109th Congress that would have maintained Internet neutrality, however, the legislation did not pass the Senate. I understand that many Americans are concerned about this issue, and I will continue to closely monitor the situation and to see how best to ensure that Americans continue to have unlimited access to the Internet,” he said.
