Expose:
An Open Letter to Senator Diane Feinstein
October 30, 2009 by Kyle BradyTags: America, Congress, Diane Feinstein, Net Neutrality, Politics, Senate
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics
I don’t have a problem that she sent me a form letter, and am actually glad she acknowledged my existence – my problem is in what, exactly, she said and what that means. To that end, the following is an Open Letter to Senator Diane Feinstein…
Dear Senator Diane Feinstein,
Thank you for recognizing my existence, even if it was via a form letter – it makes me feel as if I can, as a citizen, have an effect on our modern political battlefield in the age of corporate interests and corrupt legislators.
I do, however, have a problem with your response: within the same breath, you claim to support the principles of Net Neutrality, but immediately question the need for regulation and indicate that the interests of ISPs are potentially more important than those of their customers, which just happen to be the entire population of America.
Internet Service Providers, on the whole, have long since proved they have no interest in the privacy or equal treatment of their customers, with behaviors that run the gamut from traffic filtering/shaping/blocking to warrantless wiretapping. Other utilities companies in America, whether they are private, public, or a coalition project with the government, are heavily regulated and carefully monitored so as to not disrupt the daily activities of the country – in the age of the Internet, connectivity, and an increasing dependence on all things digital, why is Internet access treated any differently than electricity, water, waste management, or various other services?
You see, Internet access has become the next modern utility service. It has crept up on the country and taken both the people and the legislature by surprise, but it has arrived at this status nonetheless. Would it be acceptable for a power company, such as PG&E, to cut off power to homes that it felt weren’t using its electricity properly, or in a manner they ethically approve of? Would it be acceptable to selectively provide water to households that only use their product in amounts less than an arbitrary and unreasonable threshold on a daily basis? Or perhaps local trash pickups should only occur when the waste management company feels that your trash has appropriate ratios of paper, plastic, and biodegradable?
The answer, quite obviously, is a resounding ‘no’.
America was founded on the principles of individual rights and freedoms, and has since grown substantially to support and enhance these initial values, but it is time to take another large step in the process of liberty: a Digital Rights and Freedoms Act must be had for the American people, lest the nation devolve into unrepentant digital battles for civil liberties.
The national bandwidth has yet to approach capacity, despite what network providers will tell you, and there is much more ‘dark fibre’ to be found and used, left over from the dot-com boom, for further capacity. The problem is that for ISPs to provide the bandwidth and speeds that they advertise to their customers, essentially anything labeled as 'broadband', they would have to distribute customers more intelligently and appropriately across networks, rather than continue their current habit of overloading – this means less profits, because of the associated network costs. To accomplish this process of overloading, they employ tactics of filtering, shaping, and blocking traffic, often citing bogus claims of “network overload” or “unacceptable traffic”.
Finally, an underlying issue that will undoubtedly arise is that of copyright – the MPAA and RIAA would love for nothing more than certain types of traffic, usually classified as Peer-to-Peer, to be blocked from all networks. The honest truth, however, is that these protocols are copyright-independent, and are often used for entirely legal purposes. Yet the ISPs use these claims to shut off customers’ access, or heavily filter it, because of the occurrence of a supposedly illegal activity. Deciding whether a P2P traffic stream is legal is severely work intensive, and not something that can be accomplished by a piece of software – traffic source (such as The Pirate Bay) is not related to its legality, filetype (such as MP3) is independent of copyright, and original source (such as Shakespeare or Nine Inch Nails) is often, and rightly, ambiguous.
The point that I’m trying to make, and that you hopefully understand, is this: Net Neutrality is neither optional nor negotiable. As an AT&T customer by default, I have experienced heavy traffic filtering and corporate lies for the last three years, and I can personally tell you that it occurs when I am doing nothing even approaching illegal, yet it interferes with my productivity and workflow. If America, as a nation, is expecting to be a competitive and connected force on the global scale in the coming years, then federal legislation must be passed in order to secure the Digital Rights and Freedoms of the American people.
A lesson learned from the last two years of banking and investment institutions’ abhorrent behaviors should be that markets absolutely will not regulate themselves in a manner aligned with proper ethics, or the betterment of their customers, when there are higher profits to be had. Comcast and AT&T are both tangible examples of ever-higher prices for ever-degrading service, and such a trend will likely only continue – it is up to Congress, along with the FCC, to ensure that it definitively does not.
The battle for Net Neutrality in America is no different than any of the prior battles for Civil Liberties, as it is about the ability of all citizens to work and live in a manner that they are fundamentally entitled to. Anything short of a complete and uncompromising suite of regulations to place what has been previously unwritten into explicit law will be perceived by a large subset of the country as a failure of Congress to both understand the fundamental issue and act on behalf of the people.
Do not let corporate interests, or the Congressmen they control, sway your opinions or influence your decision.
Sincerely,
Kyle Brady
Correspondence
From: Senator Diane Feinstein
To: Me
Date: 10/29/2009
Dear Mr. Brady:
Thank you for writing to me about open access to the Internet and network neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you.
I agree with the general principles of network neutrality that owners of the networks that provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network and should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.
As Congress debates changes to our telecommunications laws this year, many different proposals have been offered regarding network neutrality. The question arises whether or not action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. I believe any workable solution must balance the needs of the network, service and information providers. Please know that when legislation regarding network neutrality comes before the Senate I will be sure to keep your specific views in mind.
Again, thank you for writing. If you should have any comments or questions, I hope you will feel free to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.
