Why the Democratic Ethic of the World Wide Web May Be About to End

[Guest guest]

Tony Seton [tonyseton]

Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:27 AM

preserving the WWW

 

 

 

May 28, 2006

NYT Editorial Observer

Why the Democratic Ethic of the World Wide Web May Be About to End

By ADAM COHEN

 

The World Wide Web is the most democratic mass medium there has ever

been. Freedom of the press, as the saying goes, belongs only to those

who own one. Radio and television are controlled by those rich enough

to buy a broadcast license. But anyone with an Internet-connected

computer can reach out to a potential audience of billions.

 

This democratic Web did not just happen. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the

British computer scientist who invented the Web in 1989, envisioned a

platform on which everyone in the world could communicate on an equal

basis. But his vision is being threatened by telecommunications and

cable companies, and other Internet service providers, that want to

impose a new system of fees that could create a hierarchy of Web

sites. Major corporate sites would be able to pay the new fees, while

little-guy sites could be shut out.

 

Sir Tim, who keeps a low profile, has begun speaking out in favor of

" net neutrality, " rules requiring that all Web sites remain equal on

the Web. Corporations that stand to make billions if they can push

tiered pricing through have put together a slick lobbying and

marketing campaign. But Sir Tim and other supporters of net neutrality

are inspiring growing support from Internet users across the political

spectrum who are demanding that Congress preserve the Web in its

current form.

 

The Web, which Sir Tim invented as a scientist at CERN, the European

nuclear physics institute, is often confused with the Internet. But

like e-mail, the Web runs over the system of interconnected computer

networks known as the Internet. Sir Tim created the Web in a

decentralized way that allowed anyone with a computer to connect to it

and begin receiving and sending information.

 

That open architecture is what has allowed for the extraordinary

growth of Internet commerce and communication. Pierre Omidyar, a

small-time programmer working out of his home office, was able to set

up an online auction site that anyone in the world could reach — which

became eBay. The blogging phenomenon is possible because individuals

can create Web sites with the World Wide Web prefix, www, that can be

seen by anyone with Internet access.

 

Last year, the chief executive of what is now AT & T sent shock waves

through cyberspace when he asked why Web sites should be able to " use

my pipes free. " Internet service providers would like to be able to

charge Web sites for access to their customers. Web sites that could

not pay the new fees would be accessible at a slower speed, or perhaps

not be accessible at all.

 

A tiered Internet poses a threat at many levels. Service providers

could, for example, shut out Web sites whose politics they dislike.

Even if they did not discriminate on the basis of content, access fees

would automatically marginalize smaller, poorer Web sites.

 

Consider online video, which depends on the availability of

higher-speed connections. Internet users can now watch channels, like

BBC World, that are not available on their own cable systems, and they

have access to video blogs and Web sites like YouTube.com, where

people upload videos of their own creation. Under tiered pricing,

Internet users might be able to get videos only from major corporate

channels.

 

Sir Tim expects that there are great Internet innovations yet to come,

many involving video. He believes people at the scene of an accident —

or a political protest — will one day be able to take pictures with

their cellphones that could be pieced together to create a

three-dimensional image of what happened. That sort of innovation

could be blocked by fees for the high-speed connections required to

relay video images.

 

The companies fighting net neutrality have been waging a misleading

campaign, with the slogan " hands off the Internet, " that tries to look

like a grass-roots effort to protect the Internet in its current form.

What they actually favor is stopping the government from protecting

the Internet, so they can get their own hands on it.

 

But the other side of the debate has some large corporate backers,

too, like Google and Microsoft, which could be hit by access fees

since they depend on the Internet service providers to put their sites

on the Web. It also has support from political groups of all

persuasions. The president of the Christian Coalition, which is allied

with Moveon.org on this issue, recently asked, " What if a cable

company with a pro-choice board of directors decides that it doesn't

like a pro-life organization using its high-speed network to encourage

pro-life activities? "

 

Forces favoring a no-fee Web have been gaining strength. One group,

Savetheinternet.com, says it has collected more than 700,000

signatures on a petition. Last week, a bipartisan bill favoring net

neutrality, sponsored by James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin,

and John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, won a surprisingly

lopsided vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

 

Sir Tim argues that service providers may be hurting themselves by

pushing for tiered pricing. The Internet's extraordinary growth has

been fueled by the limitless vistas the Web offers surfers, bloggers

and downloaders. Customers who are used to the robust, democratic Web

may not pay for one that is restricted to wealthy corporate content

providers.

 

" That's not what we call Internet at all, " says Sir Tim. " That's what

we call cable TV. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony Seton

Quality News Network

PO Box 2318

Monterey CA 93942