Published: March 10, 2008 07:02 am         

Experts stress need for Net neutrality

Will Net neutrality die before most people know what it is? That’s the fear of some experts, such as Hartwick College’s Howard Lichtman, who warns of the potential for large Internet service providers (ISPs) to control how their customers use the Internet.

``I think it’s a worry because a few companies have enormous power over the Internet,’’ Lichtman, an associate professor of computer and information sciences, said Wednesday.

Internet neutrality means that ISPs do not speed up, slow down, block access to websites or direct traffic in an effort to control how customers use the medium. Since its inception a generation ago, the Internet has essentially operated without corporate control.

Users have decided which sites to visit, and websites have competed for traffic based on their content, without the help or hindrance of the phone company.

But in the last year, some ISPs, including AT&T and Comcast, have been accused of ``managing’’ their networks, controlling what users see, hear and do. During a concert in Chicago last year piped onto the Internet by AT&T, the band Pearl Jam made remarks critical of President Bush and the words were cut out of the webcast. After the band complained, AT&T apologized for the ``mistake,’’ according to the Los Angeles Times.

And The Associated Press reported last year that Comcast has blocked customers from using Bit- Torrent, a program that lets files, such as movies and music, be transmitted from one computer to another.

The Comcast story made waves, and an Internet neutrality bill has been introduced to Congress.

The Federal Communications Commission is now examining Net neutrality, and Comcast made Internet headlines again Feb. 25 after it paid people to take seats at an FCC hearing at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

The giant company acknowledged hiring seattakers, but said they were reserving places for Comcast employees.

The next day, Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, spoke out against Comcast online at www.huffingtonpost. com, saying: ``How big are the stakes in the so-called network neutrality debate now raging before Congress and federal regulators? ``Consider this: One side in the debate actually went to the trouble of hiring people off the street to pack a Federal Communications Commission meeting yesterday _ and effectively keep some of its opponents out of the room.’’

Spokesmen for large ISPs argued they should be allowed to manage their networks to benefit most of their customers. File-sharing, for example, uses up more bandwidth, or capacity, than other Internet activities and should be subject to different rules, they argue.

Steve Barker, chief executive officer of the Delhi Telephone Co, a local ISP, said he sees both sides of the argument.

``Basically, I believe there is Net neutrality now for most users through most ISPs,’’ Barker said in an email to The Daily Star. ``As far as the discussion for regulation (or) law on Net neutrality, I have no opinion either way from Delhi Telephone Company’s point of view. Enforcing Net neutrality will undoubtably have its good points and also its detractors.

``I would like to say the capability is there to regulate (and) limit the bandwidth being used by some customers for some applications, and the argument can be made that this opportunity to limit is beneficial for the total customer base. ``If a few customers use the majority of the `pipe’ to the outside world, then the ISP will have to increase the size of that ‘pipe’ ... What many people miss ... is that providing access to the Internet for customers costs money, and to pay the expenses, the ISP needs to collect from the customers. If the costs go up, the price to the customer will have to go up.’’

Lichtman, a Time-Warner customer, said people are well-aware that a good connection to the Internet is expensive.

``I used to pay $15 a month and I’m paying more than $40 now,’’ he said. For that money, he and other customers should be able to freely use the Internet and be assured that ISPs are investing in their infrastructure to provide adequate bandwidth, he said.

Lichtman said that unless Net neutrality is preserved by regulation, companies will be tempted to increasingly control their customers’ activities. ``If a large provider takes over Yahoo, for example, and wants to steer traffic to its own site to make money, it might make it harder for you to get to Google, a direct competitor,’’ he said.

And after a few days of trying to use Google, frustrated customers may resort to Yahoo, even if it is inferior to Google.

Companies also may be tempted to censor viewpoints they do not share, and the Internet’s democratic character, where voices have an equal chance to be heard, is at risk, he said. Brian Pokorny, head of Otsego County’s Information Technologies Department, said Net neutrality is a big part of what has made the Internet thrive.

``I’m absolutely opposed to having companies control which sites their customers go to,’’ he said. ``The competition and the freedom to go to any legal site is what makes the Internet great.’’

On the county’s own network, employees are not free to surf anywhere, said Pokorny. ``What we do in the work environment is an entirely different issue,’’ he said. ``But on their own computers, customers should decide for themselves where they want to go.’’