- action | issues
- Academic Freedom
- Books
- Classrooms
- Copyright
- Film
- Government Secrecy
- Hate Speech
- Internet
- LGBT
- Libraries
- Music
- Nudity & Pornography
- Political Correctness
- Political Dissent
- Public Spaces
- Race Ethnicity Gender
- Radio & Television
- Religion
- Science
- Sex Education
- Theater & Performance
- Video Games
- Violence
- Visual Art
- Youth
- advocacy | projects
- education | resources
in support of free expression
The information presented here by the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety,
provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from
NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source
of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information
obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering
unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here
may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without
the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.
©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design
free speech first amendment censorship
The Threat: A Net without Neutrality
The telecom companies are not interested in a "bottom-up" model that would continue to support innovation and participation in the Internet. They already charge for access to the Web; now they are claiming the right to charge for "preferred status," which would result in one company's content loading faster than another's:
William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc. (click here for full story)
In effect, this would create a two-tiered Internet, destroying the "information superhighway" as we know it to make one preferred high-speed lane (with plenty of tollbooths), and a dirt road for those of us who can't afford it. Some content will load faster — and some perhaps not at all — based on deals made behind closed doors.
As phone and television services begin to reach us over the same cables that now deliver high speed Internet, companies like Comcast could leverage these new laws in order to make using other companies' services inconvenient or altogether impossible, all in order to promote their own products and agendas. And although it represents a true worst-case scenario, an Internet without network neutrality would be vulnerable to outright censorship, if these companies decide to make it more difficult to access information they — or those who pay them for preferred status — find inconvenient, such as content from advocacy groups, whistleblowers, or political opponents.
We've seen this kind of discrimination in action:
In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.¹
Suppression of this sort could become the norm if we do not act now to defend network neutrality.
Action Alerts
