Even if you’ve been at it as long as we have, net neutrality isn’t the easiest thing to explain. But the reason we spend so much much time doing so is because it impacts the entire music community. Scratch that. It impacts everyone who uses the internet, period.
FMC launched the Rock the Net campaign in 2007 to highlight musician support for net neutrality — the principle that protects the open internet. Since then, thousands of artists have shown their support for a level online playing field that lets musicians and music entrepreneurs compete on a level online playing field right alongside the biggest companies.
See? We just explained it! But probably not as well as Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) did in this Oct. 19 POLITICO article:
Some proponents of Net neutrality argue that this openness may someday be a thing of the past and that the Internet service providers we pay to get online may control our access to this vital communications network.
While these providers should be rewarded for the enormous investments and innovations they bring to the market, the open internet should not be jeopardized to boost the profit of a handful of companies.
That’s exactly it. The internet is what lets today’s artists make direct connections with fans, without the bottlenecks and gatekeepers that defined the original music industry. Net neutrality is the internet as we know it, but a handful of powerful Internet Service Providers (ISPs) want to charge content providers — like musicians and other entrepreneurs — a fee for the faster delivery of their sites and services. Those who couldn’t afford to (or didn’t want to) pay a toll could get stuck in the slow lane. Worse still, an ISP could decide to block content from competitors or even stifle expression that they don’t happen to like.
Senator Udall also explains the ongoing back-and-forth about how the FCC can move forward with its plans to preserve the open internet. He mentions a court decision involving Comcast that undermined the FCC’s ability to do much of anything in the broadband department. (Read more about that kerfluffle here).
In the wake of the Comcast decision, two clear paths to preserve an open Internet exist.
First, the FCC should reinstate its limited authority over broadband access services by partially reclassifying Internet communications as a “telecommunications service” under Title II of the Communications Act. The goal would be to restore the status quo that existed before the Comcast ruling.
Opposition claims that this partial reclassification of Internet services amounts to a government takeover of the Internet are patently false and outrageous. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has made clear that the agency’s “policies should not include regulating Internet content, constraining reasonable network management practices of broadband providers or stifling new business models or managed services that are pro-consumer and foster innovation and competition.”
Second, at this time of technological transformation to an increasingly mobile broadband era, Congress must reauthorize the Communications Act of 1996 and give the FCC new legal framework to ensure net neutrality.
We’re glad that he mentions mobile, because that’s how an increasing number of listeners are accessing music. It’s crucial that musicians can compete on wireless platforms, too, and that innovators can keep building mobile services that allow even unafilliated artists to reach listeners. We say as much in our latest comments filed at the FCC.
You may have noticed that the Sentator suggests that Congress should help resolve issues around broadband access that were impossible to anticipate back in ‘96. That’s cool. But he also says that the FCC “should use the tools already at its disposal to ensure that our nation has world-class broadband networks that help all Americans.”
We couldn’t have explained it better ourselves.
Comments
1 comments postedPersonally, I think you could
Submitted by Jeff Shattuck (not verified) on October 20, 2010 - 12:21pm.Personally, I think you could have explained it a lot better.
Here's what net neutrality means: all traffic is handled equally. The only way to ensure that this will be the case going forward is to pass a law that says you can either deliver content over the Internet or supply it, you cannot do both. In other words, Comcast could not create its own content, it could only deliver content created by other people. Such a simple, clear law will never happen, so next best is to do what Google and Verizon are doing, which is to allow some traffic to have priority over other traffic, especially video, which needs to arrive in real time, vs, say a Word doc, that can arrive out of order and be reassembled without much trouble to the reader.
As for all the stuff about Comcast, well, this too is simple: Comcast is classified as a broadcaster, which, of course, it no longer is, it's a telecom company. In fact, anyone offering internet service is telecom as the Internet is always two-way. Maybe the satellite guys could be considered broadcasters, but the minute they bundle Internet, they no longer are.
For a great discussion on this stuff, click here:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currents/2010/10/tim-wu-on-communi...
Post new comment