Moody Center
Attack on Free Internet
RECEIVED Mon., July 21, 2008
Dearest Editor,
Re: "Building the Netroots Nation" [News, July 11]: We should not only be concerned about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's actions of telecom immunity … but also concern ourselves with the threat that Big Telecom poses to the open Internet we are all a part of.
The Internet was built so that the power and functionality of it is left in the hands of us, its end users. We are at the edges of the network, with Internet service providers selling us a connection to the Internet through the use of their infrastructure.
Since a large investment in the physical layer of the Internet was required by the telecom companies, they feel as though applications-layer companies such as Google, eBay, and Amazon should pay them for the physical connection to the Internet they provide their customers, who create revenue for services like Amazon.
While telecom companies deserve to seek return from their investment, they are mistaken in placing the primary functionality of the Internet in the physical layer they own, as opposed to the applications and services layer we all benefit from. A telephone call costs the same regardless if you are discussing the weather or securing a $5 billion business merger. Telephone companies are not allowed to extract profit from the business deals you secure over the phone lines they invested in – they are only allowed to seek profit with a neutral subscription fee.
Big Telecom companies are seeking to turn every online communication into a transaction for profit. If Big Telecom companies are able to use their infrastructure to levy fees from applications providers, the architecture of the Internet as well as user choice would be harmed. Fees on applications providers would hinder progress on the Internet by making it much more difficult for small players to create a service that is valuable to society. Applications developers’ inability to pay the large “visibility fee” required to be seen on the Big Telecom’s network would slow innovation and squash consumer choice.
The Internet is affected with the public interest and should thus be subjected to minimally intrusive government regulation in order to maintain its position as an open, neutral platform. Telecom companies shouldn’t be allowed to decide for consumers what is viewable on the Internet – it should be up to the public to decide what works best for them.
Re: "Building the Netroots Nation" [News, July 11]: We should not only be concerned about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's actions of telecom immunity … but also concern ourselves with the threat that Big Telecom poses to the open Internet we are all a part of.
The Internet was built so that the power and functionality of it is left in the hands of us, its end users. We are at the edges of the network, with Internet service providers selling us a connection to the Internet through the use of their infrastructure.
Since a large investment in the physical layer of the Internet was required by the telecom companies, they feel as though applications-layer companies such as Google, eBay, and Amazon should pay them for the physical connection to the Internet they provide their customers, who create revenue for services like Amazon.
While telecom companies deserve to seek return from their investment, they are mistaken in placing the primary functionality of the Internet in the physical layer they own, as opposed to the applications and services layer we all benefit from. A telephone call costs the same regardless if you are discussing the weather or securing a $5 billion business merger. Telephone companies are not allowed to extract profit from the business deals you secure over the phone lines they invested in – they are only allowed to seek profit with a neutral subscription fee.
Big Telecom companies are seeking to turn every online communication into a transaction for profit. If Big Telecom companies are able to use their infrastructure to levy fees from applications providers, the architecture of the Internet as well as user choice would be harmed. Fees on applications providers would hinder progress on the Internet by making it much more difficult for small players to create a service that is valuable to society. Applications developers’ inability to pay the large “visibility fee” required to be seen on the Big Telecom’s network would slow innovation and squash consumer choice.
The Internet is affected with the public interest and should thus be subjected to minimally intrusive government regulation in order to maintain its position as an open, neutral platform. Telecom companies shouldn’t be allowed to decide for consumers what is viewable on the Internet – it should be up to the public to decide what works best for them.
Signed,
Adrienne Byard
Adrienne Byard
