Tollbooths on info superhighway?
Orlando Sentinel
June 19, 2006

Article Link  

Makram Elkhachen is on the Internet daily, checking e-mail, doing school-related research and downloading music.

But until late last week he was unaware of a brouhaha over a telecommunications bill approved by the U.S. House.

The bill could dramatically alter the future of the Web for him and millions of others by allowing a tiered-pricing policy for the speediest access and possibly even blocking some sites.

A competing proposal that a U.S. Senate committee is scheduled to consider this week would forbid telecommunications companies from imposing such policies.

"I haven't heard anyone in class talking about it or read about it online," said the mechanical-engineering major at the University of Central Florida.

"But I hope it doesn't get done, because the Internet is the best connection we have to the rest of the world."

The possibility of tollbooths on the information superhighway has escaped the attention not just of Elkhachen, but of many outside Washington.

Yet inside the Beltway, where the Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to tackle the topic on Thursday, it has generated a lot of heat, including declarations that nothing short of the future of the Web as we know it is at stake.

On one side, pushing for a tiered system, are the cable and phone companies, which provide nearly all Internet-using Americans with their access. They argue that the extra fees they would charge Web sites for priority delivery of content, such as videos and movies, would go toward much-needed expansion and improvement of the Internet.

On the other side are Internet powerhouses such as Amazon and Google, conservative religious and gun-owners groups and a liberal political-action committee -- an unlikely coalition broadly united by concerns over Internet restrictions.

They favor the Senate proposal, offered by Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that would prohibit telecom and cable companies from slowing or blocking access to Web sites or from charging big bandwidth users a fee for priority access.

Making the argument for ensuring so-called "Net neutrality," in which all sites are treated equally, this group says it's vital to maintain the free flow of information without interference from the phone and cable companies.

Net-neutrality backers raise concerns that consumers would wind up paying the toll. They also fear network operators would have too much control over content and power to block access to sites.

"Losing neutrality allows the phone and cable companies to be the gatekeeper, determine what information you can access and at what speed," said Dawn Holian, director of media research for Common Cause, a consumer-advocacy group.

Nonsense, say broadband providers. Such fears are unfounded and would lead to unnecessary regulation.

"Any company that tried to block content would be crazy, and their shareholders would have profound concerns," said Mike McCurry, a lobbyist representing the coalition that includes AT&T, BellSouth and other network operators.

The drive for a tiered system is more about meeting the challenges of transmitting content than controlling it, the operators say. Eager to find ways to pay for upgrading the Internet, they say it makes sense to target the companies that want their services delivered quickly.

Outside the Beltway, where the debate barely registers at times, the issues are less about the political tug-of-war than the everyday use of the Internet.

Since the beginning of the Web, users have grown used to a free, open environment, said Joel Hartman, vice provost for information technologies and resources at UCF.

"We are accustomed to an average level of service -- which can change during the day -- and would like to see it continue," he said.

"Moving away from net neutrality means different tiers of service at different costs. What you don't want are blocked resources or restrictions on getting things you want."

Also important is the freedom for bloggers and others to post opinions without interference from a network operator, said Matt Certo, president of WebSolvers Inc., a Web-site developer in Winter Park.

"You don't want to start crimping anyone's freedom of expression," he said.

"This is an important subject, but, at the same time, it's not one I've heard a lot about from clients. I doubt it's really going to hamper the Web."

Closer to the eye of the storm in Washington, the rhetoric blows harder and heavier -- and the money flows.

The phone and cable providers have recently made outlays of $5 million a week for media advertising in the Washington area, said Craig Aaron, spokesman for Free Press, a consumer group backing net neutrality.

By comparison, public-interest groups have had a more limited budget of about $100,000 for ads, he said.

"We're facing an uphill fight, but it's far from a lost cause," he said.

Indeed, in a recent full-page ad in The New York Times, the Christian Coalition of America and MoveOn.org, along with Free Press and other groups, pleaded the net-neutrality case.

And executives from some leading Internet companies are speaking out.

Well-established e-commerce businesses don't want their customers to have to pay to get to their sites, said Paul Misener, vice president of government relations for Amazon .com.

"We see the Web as an engine of communication and economy," he said.

Aaron of Free Press said if Congress doesn't pass legislation this summer, the fight could take several years to play out.

"The word is really just getting out to the public. If people knew what was going on, they would be outraged," he said.

Maybe so. UCF senior Cornelius Mambolea, an organizational-communications major from Kenya, said he doesn't like the idea of Web monitoring or blocking access to sites.

"We want the freedom to express ourselves," he said.

"If someone thinks a message isn't what the public should be viewing, and subject to censorship, that isn't right. We should have the right to express our opinions."