I wasn’t aware until today that there is a bill before Congress - the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Efficiency Act of 2006, or COPE (aka the Barton-Rush Act) - that would greatly change the way we view the Internet. The telecommunications companies are lobbying to change the principle of network neutrality, effectively giving them control over how quickly different content providers load in Web browsers, and even allowing them to block content they deem objectionable. The idea is that providers could sell fast loading privileges to wealthy content providers like EBay, Amazon and Google while smaller sites would load more slowly.
There are a number of organizations and private citizens who don’t want that to happen. In fact, I learned of the issue when I got an e-mail from Eli Pariser at MoveOn.org telling me about the bill. The bill’s opponents argue that giving the telecom companies the power to control the way the Internet is displayed would allow them to exert undue influence over people’s decision making, purchasing and browsing habits. There are also some First Amendment-based objections to the bill.
But the telecommunications companies argue that because they own the pipes, they should be able to control what goes through them and at what speeds.
I know how I feel personally about this, but we don’t take positions on political issues here at the BBS. We are, however, free to hold debates. So dear readers, what do you think about all this?
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Patsi Krakoff 05.01.06 at 6:12 pm
I’m strongly against this. Not because I fear Big Biz, or because of any political leanings, but simply because we must protect freedom of speech. There are already some scary provisions in the Patriot Act that impede our protection. Just because a telephone company owns the pipelines is not sufficient reason for them to dictate or influence our online viewing and access.
Kip Meacham 05.02.06 at 12:13 pm
I think it comes down to the corruptible consequences of systems and decisions like these. When you create the means to do corruptible things, corrupt people usually take the opportunity to exploit those things and corruption ensues. I’m all for capitalism, but this is clearly not in the public good. I wonder if a constitutional equal protection clause argument that could be made against this. What does EFF
have to say about the topic?
Kip Meacham