ISP Transparency Finally In The Works
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Thank You Google.
Says mashable:
Google today introduced Measurement Lab, a set of tools (some already working, some upcoming) for network diagnostics. . . . These tools include the Network Diagnostic Tool, which tests your connection speed and gives you a diagnosis on speed issues; Glasnost, which tests whether your ISP is blocking or throttling BitTorrent connections, and Network Path and Application Diagnosis, which helps you find problems that usually plague last-mile broadband networks.[W]hat’s important is the fact that Google is taking a stand, saying: we’re going to help you fight for net neutrality even if the ISPs don’t like it. . . . It wasn’t an easy decision to make, even for a giant like Google. If these tools were coming from another source, the ISPs would probably simply employ measures that render them useless. However, it’s much harder to block a service if Google stands behind it. On the other hand, even Google doesn’t want to anger every ISP that’s throttling network traffic in some way - and many of them are doing it. Net neutrality has just received a huge push; probably one that will ultimately turn the tide to its favor.
The Future of the Internets
I'm currently taking a class on Telecommunications and Broadcast Media Law. Much of the reading and discussion is timely, and one of the most cutting edge topics we're discussing is Net Neutrality. My school even put on a symposium focusing on the issue of earlier this year. How the issue is settled will decide how the Internet will grow and develop. While some of the statements about the history of telecom regulation, umm, lack accuracy, this Op-Ed in today's NY Times is one of the clearest, most concise, best reasoned pieces I've read regarding the direction that movement on the issue should take.
Under current law, [Network Operators] can block certain files or Web sites for their subscribers, or slow or obstruct certain applications. And they do, albeit pretty rarely. Network providers have censored anti-Bush comments from an online Pearl Jam concert, refused to allow a text-messaging program from the pro-choice group Naral (saying it was “unsavory”), blocked access to the Internet phone service (and direct competitor) Vonage and selectively throttled online traffic that was using the BitTorrent protocol.
And what is likely to happen without government regulation? What if the operators are free to do what they want to "optimize traffic" over their network?
[Network Operators] won’t be blocking anything per se — we’ll never know what we’re not getting — they’ll just be leapfrogging today’s technology with a new, higher-bandwidth network where they get to be the gatekeepers and toll collectors. The superlative new video on offer will be available from (surprise, surprise) them, or companies who’ve paid them for the privilege of access to their customers. If this model sounds familiar, that’s because it is. It’s how cable TV operates.
We can’t allow a system of gatekeepers to get built into the network. The Internet shouldn’t be harnessed for the profit of a few, rather than the good of the many; value should come from the quality of information, not the control of access to it.
For some parallel examples: there are only two guitar companies who make most of the guitars sold in America, but they don’t control what we play on those guitars. Whether we use a Mac or a PC doesn’t govern what we can make with our computers. The telephone company doesn’t get to decide what we discuss over our phone lines. It would be absurd to let the handful of companies who connect us to the Internet determine what we can do online. Congress needs to establish basic ground rules for an open Internet, just as common carriage laws did for the phone system.
Couldn't have said it better myself.