February 14th, 2006

The End of the Internet as we know it?

In a dire warning I’ve seen from a number of reliable sources recently, including an AlterNet post by Jeffrey Chester, the future of the Internet could be very different — and less democratic.

Big phone and cable companies want to start charging additional user fees for the supposedly-free Internet, Chester states. Under the plans these companies are considering, and for which they’re starting to lobby the government, all users — from content providers to individual users — would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail, according to Chester. They want to set prices based on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.

This is potentially very serious, of course, and I hope it’s not as dire as it sounds. I’m also hoping to see a little more clarity on exactly who and how these proposals will affect the Internet’s many users, both organizations and individuals (I wish I had more time to examine the original sources and documents!).

One of the examples given by various sources on the direction the cable and phone companies are going is a quote from Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T. He apparently told Business Week in November, “Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can’t be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!”

Having worked with telecommunications laws and regulations for several years in a previous incarnation, this statement doesn’t surprise me at all — the telecom companies have been complaining about this since the Internet’s start when “free Internet phone” services started springing up. But now, it sounds like they are talking about wanting fees for all data going over the Internet, and not just voice; and it sounds like what they want will affect more individual users and small businesses, rather than just competing companies.

However, will it just be content providers they charge and, if so, what does that really mean? Or will individual users really have to start paying for their level of use instead of just a flat fee to access unlimited use, as they do now (I can’t agree with Chester that the Internet is currently free)? Will it affect website hosts or websites more?

Lawmakers should do to both the former bells and cable companies what they did to AT&T in 1983 — namely break up these monopolies of communications into two main parts. One would remain heavily regulated as a public utility — that being the holder of core equipment and these companies’ connections to commercial and residential buildings, or “communications pipes”. (After all, you can’t have many competing companies, each with their own pipes into all buildings, it’s just not feasible). The other part would be a marketing and customer services firm that would have to compete with every other similar firm for access to the newly defined public utility.

If action is needed, I will look for the action emails I get from various nonprofits and think tanks to email and/or call the relevant lawmakers and regulators. I urge you to do the same — this strategy has worked before when Americans mounted successful challenges to the FCC’s media ownership rules in 2003, so it’s well worth the effort.