Kiss Kiss Bye Bye Internet

What could possibly unite Moveon.org and the Gun Owners of America? You might think the answer would be rabid grizzly bears assaulting a group of dyslexic children…

But apparently it’s net neutrality.

About a month ago, the House subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet (see, already boring most people) rejected a proposed amendment to guarantee your personal photo blog the same bandwidth treatment as Google or eBay. More specifically it would have stopped telecommunication companies from charging content providers more based on their size or content.

They say they have no intention of doing what this amendment would have prevented, but they are rather reluctant to have those words written into some kind of legal document.

We’ve grown up on the internet. The people who created it have weighed in on the issue but most of us who speak fluent internet, be it in buzzwords or markup language, are too lazy to care about the issue. “The internet can’t change” think they. They think wrong.

But maybe you don’t.

Maybe you’re thinking, “wait… amendment? Amendment to what?” Good, you’re paying attention. It was an amendment to a bill that gives telecoms (Verizon, Comcast, AT&T) free reign when it comes to deciding what to do with their monopolistic empires. What they want is the ability to do is charge the Amazons of the internet more for using more bandwidth. But says you, “companies such as Google already pay for the bandwidth they use.” (Finacial Times [requires trial subscription.]) You’re right. Can anybody say logical fallacy?

We already pay for the bandwidth we use. Charging more simply because a website is large and can afford it is unethical.

But I still hope.

The bill only passed the House subcommittee and hasn’t come before the whole body quite yet. With the major internet players making a fuss and the possibility of Financial Sector involvment, the Republican majority house is looking at a war between big business on one side and big business on the other; the new free market internet kids and the old guys out of Monopoly with the monocles and the top hats.

Then there’s the Senate, more susceptible to national public opinion and fronting a bi-partisan bill that sides with logic and reason. Well, nothing that comes out of the Senate is fully on the side of logic and reason, but that bill favors free markets and competition on the internet rather than windfalls for the internet oil tycoons.

Thank Olympia Snowe (R Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D North Dakota) for being the senators least behind the technology curve (or at least having interns that they listen to.)

You may be wondering what logic the telecoms use to convince people they aren’t just money hungry beasts. Some are arrogant and think people won’t notice the inherent logical fallacy, saying “for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes (for) free is nuts.” Edward Whitacre (AT&T CEO) to Business Week.

Other more market savy telecom spokesmen say they need more money to pay for fiber-optic lines so they can distribute movies faster. I say “Fair enough.” Asking companies to pay more when they use fiber optics lines makes sense.

Asking companies to pay before they’re installed does not.

If the telecoms see potential profit in fiber optics lines then they should build them. If they don’t have enough money (a laughable concept) then they should get venture capitalists to help them. Any investment is a risk and it is unacceptable to expect the people you intend to sell your service to… to front the money for the service.