The article below was forwarded to me by a friend, from our local paper. Interesting article. I think it sounds like a horrible idea to me, for a variety of reasons, especially considering we pay for the wires when we pay our phone and DSL/cable internet bills. Also smaller websites, bloggers, personal websites, etc would be hurt by this policy, in my opinion.

------------------------------------

‘Pay to play’ Internet? Providers say it should be
Congress debating whether companies ought to be able to buy premium performance

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Marilyn Geewax
COX NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON — Internet users have grown accustomed to wandering independently in cyberspace, free from outside influence over the online destinations they choose.

But now, telephone and cable companies are arguing that they should be able to let some Internet sites work better than others, making them more attractive to Web surfers.

For example, if Google paid for the right, an Internet provider would allow the search engine to return results more quickly than any other. If the Walt Disney Co. ponied up, its ondemand movies would download for home viewing far faster than competitors’ offerings.

The notion is sparking a fight, with companies that have flourished online asking Congress to guarantee that providers of highspeed Internet service will preserve a world of "network neutrality."

They want lawmakers to approve rules requiring broadband providers to give equal access to all Web sites and services, whether they involve voice, video or data.

"This is huge — the future of the Internet is at stake," said Jonathan Rintels, head of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an advocacy group for writers, producers, directors and other artists. "This would lead to a closed, proprietary Internet."

Phone and cable companies argue that heavy-handed government rules would discourage them from building the infrastructure needed for advanced online services. They say they are making multibillion-dollar investments in wires and equipment and ought to be free to reap big rewards for taking big risks.

The companies say that charging online- content providers for highquality performance is only fair.

In Business Week last month, Edward Whitacre, chief executive of AT&T, formerly known as SBC Communications, caused a stir by stating his company’s case bluntly: "For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts."

William Smith, chief technology officer for BellSouth, recently defended his company’s desire to "prioritize" services, depending upon which content providers are affiliated with BellSouth.

He said BellSouth would not block access to Web content or services but would use its technology to identify which "packets" of content should be allowed to move more quickly to customers.

He said all sorts of companies routinely charge for higherquality performance. "If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first-class ticket," he said.

Braden Cox, technology counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a publicpolicy group that supports freemarket approaches, agrees with BellSouth.

Consumers might "fear that the people who own the pipes will manage the content too," he said. "That would be a legitimate concern if there were only one pipe." But because consumers now have several broadband choices, including DSL, cable and satellite, they would flee from any company that used heavy-handed policies to steer them to particular sites and services, he said.

Opponents are outraged at the thought of giving Internet providers the power to influence Web users’ choices.

Computer networking pioneer Vinton Cerf, revered by many as the "father of the Internet," last month asked members of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee to rethink any legislation that would not contain tough neutrality provisions.

"This bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it," Cerf, now a vice president at Google Inc., said in a letter. "Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do on line."

This position is backed by independent Internet service providers, such as Atlanta-based EarthLink Inc.

During a House hearing last month, Christopher Putala, executive vice president of public policy for EarthLink, called for stringent neutrality rules that would ensure consumers’ access to any lawful content or applications, including video and phone services, while prohibiting broadband providers from favoring affiliated sites.

"The threat of Internet discrimination is a real and present danger to consumers," he said.

The House subcommittee had hoped to address the issue this week during a vote on telecommunications overhaul legislation. But because of lastminute wrangling among committee members, no action was scheduled.

In Congress, positions on the issue have split largely along party lines, with Democrats favoring Internet neutrality. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said the Internet so far has been "a wonderfully chaotic, open, worldwide network, a platform for innovation and an economic engine for the country."

In the Senate, Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has not yet introduced legislation, but he has scheduled a "net neutrality" hearing for Feb. 7.