Free speech…it is one of the hallmarks of the American way of life. The ability to freely express oneself without fear of government reprisal is so fundamental that it is enshrined in the first amendment to our national Constitution. Yet despite this protection, there have always been restrictions on how free our speech really is, and in some cases, this is how it should be. We are not free to speak falsehoods that cause harm to others. Libel and slander laws address that issue. We are not free to speak in ways that incite fear or riots without cause. The oft used “yelling fire in a crowded movie house” illustrates that point quite well and we have laws against that too. Like any freedom, the freedom to speak requires a sense of responsibility by the speaker.
The issue of free speech has been all over the media in recent weeks, arising from the outrage of the Muslim world in protest to some caricatures of their religious prophet. It has also been talked about in the wake of the NSA wiretapping scandals and the possible effects that those actions may have on the U.S. government’s critics to express their views free of government eavesdropping and without fear of possible sanctions against them. In both of these cases, the ability to exercise the freedom of speech has been called into question, but in different ways. In one case, the ability to exercise free speech is being questioned by religious fundamentalists who don’t offer such freedoms to their own people. In the other, the use of free speech is being chilled by abusive governmental policies that increasingly seem to be targeted at political opponents. However, despite the serious implications of both of these matters, the topic of this essay is not to address those matters. Instead, I would like to discuss the efforts of American corporations to abridge the newest form of free speech in the world…namely, the use of the internet to get and share information and opinions in a way never before possible.
The internet has historically been an open medium, allowing innovation to improve the availability of information and the communication of people everywhere. This factor has led to the rise of many new businesses, including online shopping, online advertising, and of course, the sharing of news, information, and opinion. The internet has created a huge financial opportunity for businesses and individuals alike, but now it seems that some of the biggest providers of internet access want to change the rules and corner all those profits for themselves. The effects of this effort will not only consolidate the money making possibilities of the internet into the hands of a few giant and wealthy corporations, it will also have a chilling effect on the newest form of free speech, blogging.
With the internet today, all someone has to do is open an online account with a service provider and the entire world wide web is available with a few keystrokes and mouse clicks. You simply pay your $10 or $20 or $40 each month, depending on the speed of your service, and you can get literally all the information on any subject that you want. The explosive growth of the new electronic medium has enabled people to find out the time of the latest movie, download coupons, pay their bills, file their taxes, and organize political positions, to name just a few. You pay your provider fee and the content is free. And it has worked wonderfully. The biggest service providers get a lot of money in monthly user fees. The biggest content providers get a lot of money from online advertisers. And all the users get whatever it is they need or want from the experience. But what has been great for consumers, writers, and the curious citizen hasn’t been great enough for the biggest service providers in the game. Now they want you to pay not just for the ability to access the net, but also for the content you receive.
In recent statements to both the press and the U.S. Congress, the biggest telecom companies in the country think they deserve even more money, and they are actively seeking to restrict internet usage by trying to impose usage fees to content providers for using the infrastructure of the internet to disseminate information. By arguing that they own the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the network, they say that they should be able charge anyone who uses the network a user fee.
Bellsouth’s William L. Smith told reporters that he would like the Internet to be turned into a “pay-for-performance marketplace” where his company would be allowed, for example, to charge Yahoo for the right to have its site load faster than Google. (Washington Post, December 1, 2005)
Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg says that web applications (like search engines, online video, VoIP telephone) need to “share the cost” of broadband – broadband that’s already been paid for by the consumer. “We have to make sure that they [application providers] don’t sit on our network and chew up bandwidth. We need to pay for the pipe.” (TechWeb News, January 5, 2006)
AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre said: “What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain’t going to let them do that….Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?” (Business Week, November 7, 2005)
and
“I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network…. Now they might pass it on to their customers who are looking at a movie, for example. But that ought to be a cost of doing business for them. They shouldn’t get on [the network] and expect a free ride.” (Financial Times, January 30, 2006)
What these men are really saying is that the more money you have to give to them and their companies, the more your right will remain to use and access the internet as you do today. Want to access 100 hundred sites a day with a high-speed connection? No problem, so long as you have the cash to pay for each site you visit, each page you view, and the faster you want to look the more expensive it will be. Effectively, they are trying to shut the door on the average person to utilize the great tool of information and commerce that is the internet. And for those who are willing to shell out a few more bucks, they are even trying to kick your personal websites into the slow lane by restricting high-speed infrastructure to their own content companies or affiliates.
But it’s not just the service providers that are trying to change the way we use the net.
America Online and Yahoo, two of the nations largest e-mail providers are taking a shot at getting an “e-mail tax” enacted in an effort to squeeze more money out of people who seek to communicate and share information via e-mail.
America Online and Yahoo, two of the world’s largest providers of e-mail accounts, are about to start using a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay from 1/4 of a cent to a penny each to have them delivered. The senders must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely. The Internet companies say that this will help them identify legitimate mail and cut down on junk e-mail, identity-theft scams and other scourges that plague users of their services. They also stand to earn millions of dollars a year from the system if it is widely adopted.
One wonders how soon it will be before they start d
emanding non-commercial e-mails be charged fees as well.
The successful effects of these efforts will ultimately spell the end of internet usage as we know it, and will shut the door on the freedom of speech that an affordable, open, and largely free internet offers us all today. These are issues that don’t just affect political bloggers either, though those of us who fall into that category will probably be the first to feel the loss. Ultimately, everyone who uses the internet for anything will feel the squeeze from these greedy, and already incredibly wealthy corporations. And while they don’t yet realize it, these measures will also kill off the revenue streams that these businesses already enjoy. When average citizens can’t afford both access and content fees, they will use the internet less and less. Advertisers will move away because their audience will have dried up. When the advertisers go, so too do all the profits. In what is often the case with unbridled greed, these guys are loading the gun they will be shooting their foot with.
Fortunately, it hasn’t happened yet. And it is possible for you to make it known that you want this nonsense to end. This is not a partisan or political problem. It will affect everyone of us who uses the internet.
To let the Telecom service providers know how much you oppose their actions, sign this petition.
To tell AOL that they need to keep their sticky fingers off of our e-mail, sign this one.
This entry was posted on Saturday, February 11th, 2006 at 8:42 am and is filed under Common Sense, Democracy, General, Media, Politics, society.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 11th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
well, the way I see it, what’s happening is this: greed and the need to grow has turned them blind to innovative ways and start bullying users.
Users, consumers, who supposed to be “kings”.
February 11th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
There is no such thing as free speech anymore,i found that out the hard way.Stop by for a visit.
February 12th, 2006 at 6:50 am
It reminds me of the old days when television was freely broadcast, paid for by advertisers. We may be turning to underground internet someday, like the pirate radio stations.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Ken, are you saying you don’t like greedy capitalism in all it’s forms????
What are you, “unamerican” or something???
By the way; I need you to email me. I have something very important to bring to your attention, brother….
guntotingliberal AT hotmail dot com
l8r… and of course, GREAT post!
February 13th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
While I agree with you emotionally that such a thing as charging for what used to be free SUCKS, I must descent from your opinion on free access to the Internet as being a right.
As I see it, the internet is not merely a place for us to speak freely, but is the gathering point of thousands, if not millions, of various services provided by different companies. While it is an Uber-convenience to spread our thoughts, and advertise for our own micro-businesses, these Service Providers are the ones who have, over time, provided the medium we utilize. Our medium is their product. They are the ones who’ve made these things possible, and while they are NOT the owners of the Internet, they are the owners of their respective services which come together to create the internet.
Thus established, in keeping with the system that made these companies so successful, capitalism, it is up to us, the consumer, to decide if their services are worth paying for. If they are, we will pay and drive on. If they are not, we will not pay, they will go out of business (until they wise up), and we will have to do without their services until a new provider comes along who gives us what we want for the price we want.
While I thoroughly enjoy the internet at its present semi-free state, I will not DEMAND anything from a company who has the right to charge what they wish for the products they produce. If they want to stay in business, they will not charge too much (or at all) because consumers will not pay. This is our right as consumers, to walk away if we do not like the price. This is the only right we can claim to the Internet, the right not to have it. Everything else is a haggle. Pure economics.
Now that that is out of the way, I want you to know that you have been added to my A-List on my blogroll at FusionBlog.us. I respect any Blogger who actually researches the facts of his opinions. While I disagree with the above post, I like your style, and consider it my pleasure to link back to you.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Once again, Ken, an important and thought-provoking essay. Of course, as commentor Dixon contends, capitalism has the “right” to flourish in whatever new technological setting comes along. But when, in the pursuit of profit, corporations hold potential control over information content and our access to it, we face a situation that threatens us all in a very real way – especially now, when obfuscation and the misrepresentation of facts have been elevated to an art form by those in corporate, and governmental, seats of power.
Also, congratulations on an excellent review at Bloggy Award – it’s certainly well deserved.
February 13th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
This money-grubbing plan is nothing new, many of us have forseen it for years. The question is who the world wide web “belongs” to, not in the literal, tangible sense, but in truth. It belongs to the people, and it needs to be overseen by the people, NOT the corporations seeking larger profits. What about our right to FREE ENTERPRISE? This will certainly curtail many thousands of small businesses, which is contrary to the good of our nation. (Not that THAT is a qualifier these days!)
Good essay Ken, and I congratulate you also on the great achievements. Really cool.
February 14th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Nice and informative post Ken. I think you’ve made a lot of good points.
I’m not quite sure I understand the whole infrastructure thing but something that I have to wonder about. I pay a telcom company for internet service if I have DSL and I paid when I had dial up because I wanted a second phone line (I’ve been a junkie for awhile). So if they then charge yahoo or google extra, aren’t they being paid twice?
February 15th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
The way I look at it, the corporations giveth; the corporations taketh away; blessed be the name of the corporations.
If the blossoming Internet usage is causing problems for communications companies’ pipes and they need to add to their infrastructure to handle it, that will cost money. They can raise the money in several ways: they can simply raise rates to all customers or institute a pay-as-you-go plan. The second is the more equitable.
It’s comparable to taxes for road repair: governments can raise the taxes for all people or they can raise the gas tax or they can put up toll booths. Now the first is inequitable because not everyone uses the roads equally. Why should the little old lady who only drives to Church on Sunday be taxed equally with the truck-driver who spends much of his life on the road? Toll booths would be most equitable but pose too much of a deterrence to travel in most places, city streets for example. The gas tax is the middle-ground. Those who use the roads the most contribute the most to the road repair funds.
Charging website owners for the traffic is an indirect toll booth method. A company or person who get’s the most hits and uses the most pipe-space will pay the most. The site owner will, naturally, need to raise more funds to make up for that. What it will result in, mostly, is more advertising. People will be blocked from accessing a site unless they allow pop-ups or pop-unders, for example.
As for the free speech issue, it sucks, but the constitution only protects people from prosecution by the government for the expression of most speech, it does not guarantee any particular forum, such as the web logs, for your speech. It certainly doesn’t prevent pipe space providers from charging whatever the market will bear.
I say we thank the communications companies for providing outlets for our expression of ideas, including railing against the communications companies on our blogs, pony up for the privilege and enjoy bitching at the communications companies…or not. Whichever suits.
February 15th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
That kind of legislation would take away from the whole thing that makes the Internet great. Not to mention making it harder for the poorer among us to keep up and remain informed. Next, we will give tax breaks to oil companies to drill in wetlands and to airlines because they have been poorly managed
February 16th, 2006 at 5:40 am
(response)
Eko- Yes, obviously greed plays a big part in the final equation for these guys. My question…isn’t there supposed to be more in life than amassing money? I think there is, and that these super greedy execs are beyond the pale…
Good to hear from you.
Michelle- I stopped by your blog to see what you meant, but found mostly stuff about album collecting. Anyhow, thanks for dropping by.
Shea- Underground internet? Interesting concept, but unlike radio which goes through the air (which they have yet to charge us for) the internet still operates via hardware. Sure, there are wireless connections available, but content still has to come from somewhere, usually via hardware.
Still, I’d be open for some kind of “pipe-free” system that would eliminate these kinds of money grabs.
GTL- Yes…that’s what I’m saying. Greed, unbridled as this is, is just plain ugly. May these guys fail miserably in their attempts.
Dixon- I don’t think I implied that the internet should be free, just that these plans to bleed every cent out of users is just greed gone awry.
In truth, the service providers ARE claiming ownership of something that was originally created using public tax dollars, the origins of the internet developed by the U.S. military.
If anything, they should be paying the fees for being able to operate on technology designed with our funds. But we don’t work that way…
And I did mention that the quest for taking cash at each waypoint along the way will only injure these companies as more people rebel and decline to use the very thing that has made them rich. But although that would hurt the service providers, it would also hurt us, individual users who are increasingly forced to communicate and do business through this new medium of the internet.
Imagine if your employer decided to discontinue using the internet or e-mail because the fees became too much. They’d lose business, then you’d lose your job. The ubiquitousness of the net is so complete that we would have a hard time turning back. To change the rules now, in mid-course, is not a good idea, especially when the ultimate goal is only to increase the pocketbooks of the super wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.
Thanks, by the way, for adding me to your blogroll. I’ll be sure to drop by.
Bob- Thanks, again. And I didn’t even get too far in to the whole disinformation aspects, because we are far along that path already. But yes, consolidation of content by way of increasing costs to distribute information does put a big pinch on the whole idea of freedom of speech.
BonJ- Nice to hear from you again. Yes, these attempts to raise fees at all levels does not bode well for small businesses, free thinkers, small media, or private communications. Sign the petitions and help out if you can.
Bonnie- Thanks. Glad I could offer something for you to think about. And you do get the point…it is a scheme to charge double, or triple, or more. Like I said…jsut unbridled greed, and an attempt by some to stifle free thought by those who can’t afford the cost of admission. Glad to hear from you.
Craig- Your road analogy is interesting. And to an extent, I agree. But in actuality, many gas tax funds are raided by state and federal governments, used for non-road or non-transportation things, and we’re still left with a bunch of potholes and higher taxes. Then we’re taxed more for something else to make up the gas tax shortfall, and in the end a greedy and wasteful government leaves us worse off than before. And that’s what will be the result of this blatant money grab with the internet.
You are right that our guarantee to free speech does not protect a specific way to use that freedom, but as electronic communications become the only game in town to disseminate information, it becomes more incumbent to make sure that that medium is as available to all as possible.
The communication companies don’t want our thanks, just our money. They don’t care about our freedom, just our wallets. I pay a fee already to have access to the medium. That is my fair share. Asking me to pay more for the privilege of talking on the medium I already pay for is just wrong. I can accept increases in access fees, as long as they are measured and restricted to user access. I can not accept surcharges for each and every visitor I get or visit I make. That is not a fair use policy. Thanks for the great comments.
Me4- Hmmm… are you saying that we’re screwed?
February 16th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Great post Ken. Not much else could be said so I’m not saying it.
February 16th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Assholes, trying to put a price on the internet. Tim-Berners Lee, inventore of the WWW never tried to profit from it. So why should they?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:31 am
Very interesting and informative post.
And a sad one!
You are right : these companies providers will kill the Internet use with these projects…
Is that what we’re used to call capitalism?
February 17th, 2006 at 6:36 am
(responses)
Steve O- Thanks for the read. And for just saying something!
Leon- G-R-E-E-D. That’s your long AND your short answer. Thanks for dropping by.
Baron- Thanks. And yes, it is a sad, but not unexpected development considering the way this administration is stuck in bed with the corporate giants. GIve them an inch…
February 19th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
WriterLance.Com – Freelance Writing,Writing,Articles,Essays,Term Papers,Homework,Books-Get qualified writers to do your projects
Got Writer’s Block ? Find expert freelance writers at the prices you want to pay. Post your projects
and writers will place bids, you choose the price you want. Get qualified writers to do your projects.
Are you a Writer ? Would you like to make extra money ? Sign up now ! We need freelance writers .
http://www.WriterLance.com