The net neutrality dogfight shaking up cyberspace
From the beginning of internet time, those who love the net have tried to pretend that the laws of nature, economics and geography - not to mention human greed - simply do not apply to cyberspace.
But now this quaint utopian vision of a digital Arcadia is getting in the way of sensible debate over broadband regulation in America, and the future of internet innovation. For the past few weeks, broadband carriers (such as Verizon), big internet content companies (such as Google) and a host of concerned netizens have been shouting louder and louder to make sure the US Congress hears them before it decides if and how to impose new regulations on the internet.
The recent news of yet more consolidation in the broadband universe - with the proposed sale of Bell South to AT&T - has given both sides even more to fight about.
They are brawling over an issue that has one of those baffling techie titles - "net neutrality" - but is really just a dogfight about who will make the most money from the next generation of internet connectivity. But you would never know that from listening to the Verizons, the Googles and the Internet utopians.
Boiled down to basics, this is what the net neutrality spat is all about: broadband carriers want to be able to charge higher fees to those who are the biggest consumers - they want to charge the heavy trucks more than the Mini Metros for using the information superhighway. They want to build a fast lane with a higher toll. They say the construction of next-generation information networks depends on it. They will provide the cash to build the bigger, better broadband everyone needs.
Ed Whitacre, chief executive of AT&T, attracted almost universal opprobrium recently when he asked a question that, in any world other than cyberspace, would surely have an obvious answer: "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The internet can't be free in that sense because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts."
But the big names in the internet world - 64 of them, including Google, Ebay, Amazon and many others, backed by the superstars of techie academia - have written to Congress saying there is more than money at stake. They say that it is dangerous to give one form of internet content an edge over another: if titans such as Google can pay to dominate the broadband universe - by getting to all of us faster than rivals - how could internet start-ups (as Google once was) ever hope to compete?
"Nothing less than the future of the internet is at stake," says Vinton Cerf, who was there when the internet was a youth, and now holds the somewhat preposterous title of "chief internet evangelist" for Google.
The genius of the internet has been to allow "innovation without permission", he says. If those who control the network are allowed to discriminate between different kinds of content - if they can deliver one company's videos faster than another's, or one search engine's resultsmore promptly than arival's - then netfreedom will be shackled and innovation hobbled.
"There's nothing wrong with network owners saying 'we'll guarantee fast video service on your broadband account'," Lawrence Lessig, professor at Stanford University Law School and chief academic theorist of the internet, told a recent congressional hearing on net neutrality. "There is something wrong with network owners saying 'we'll guarantee fast video service from NBC on your broadband account'."
So far, as any internet user will attest, that has not happened: broadband carriers deliver Google no faster than they dish up the website for the local school or any other public service website. All that could change, says Prof Lessig, since most US households have only two broadband providers to choose from, and sometimes no choice. If network operators start choking off some content, consumers will have little power to fight them.
But even if that internet nightmare comes true - and it seems unlikely that it will, since wireless broadband will soon be a robust competitor - the US antitrust laws will be quite powerful enough to deal with such injustices.
Until then, it makes sense to apply simple laws of logic to internet regulation: do not solve problems that do not yet exist. To do so will only create more trouble.
信息高速公路要有快车道吗
自互联网时代一开始，那些热爱网络的人就试图佯称自然、经济学和地理法则都不适用于网络世界，更不用说人的贪婪了。
不过现在，这种数字世外桃源的离奇乌托邦理想，正在妨碍美国就宽带监管以及互联网创新的未来展开理智的辩论。近几周来，宽带运营商(比如Verizon)、大型互联网内容企业(比如Google)和许多忧心忡忡的网民呼声日益高涨，他们试图确保美国国会在决定是否及如何对互联网实施新的监管之前，能听到他们的声音。
近期有消息称宽带领域将出现更多的企业合并(如拟议中AT&T收购南方贝尔(Bell South))，这些消息给了双方更多争论依据。
它们争吵的话题有一个令人困惑的技术名头――“网络中立性”，但其实是一场狗咬狗的混战，牵涉到谁能从下一代互联网连通性中赚到最多的钱。但光听Verizon和Google这样的企业、或者互联网空想家，你永远也听不出这一点。
简言之，网络中立性的争吵就是：宽带运营商希望具备能力，向最大的消费者收取更高的费用――它们要向使用信息高速公路的重型货车收取比小汽车更高的费用。它们想修一条过路费更高的快车道。它们说，下一代信息网络的建设要靠它。这将提供资金，建设人人都需要的、更大更好的宽带。
AT&T首席执行官埃德?惠塔克(Ed Whitacre)最近几乎遭到了所有人的唾骂，当时他问了一个除了在网络领域，在其它任何领域都肯定会有明显答案的问题：“他们凭什么使用我的管道？从这个意义上说，互联网不能免费，因为我们和有线电视公司做了投资，Google、雅虎(Yahoo)、Vonage或任何人指望免费使用这些管道都是荒唐的。”
但互联网领域的64家知名企业，包括Google,、Ebay、亚马逊(Amazon)和其它许多企业，在科技学术界超级明星的支持下，给国会写信，称这不只是钱的问题。它们表示，给予一种互联网内容形式超越另一种的优势很危险：假如Google等巨头花钱就能统治宽带领域(通过比对手更快地让我们所有人访问)，互联网初创企业(Google一度也是)还有什么希望去竞争呢？
“这关系到互联网的未来，”互联网前辈温顿?科夫(Vinton Cerf)表示。他现在的头衔多少有点荒谬――Google“首席互联网传教士”。
他表示，互联网的美妙之处，就在于允许“无需许可的创新”。假如那些控制网络的企业可以区别对待不同类型的内容，假如它们传输某公司的视频速度可以超过另一公司，或者某搜索引擎的结果比对手企业的结果更迅速，那么网络自由将被束缚，创新将被压制。
“网络所有者说‘我们将保证您的宽带账户可以使用快速视频服务’，这没什么不对，”在最近一次就互联网中立性举行的国会听证会上，斯坦福大学法学院(Stanford University Law School)教授和头号互联网学术理论家劳伦斯?莱斯格(Lawrence Lessig)表示。“网络所有者说‘我们将保证你们的宽带账户可以使用NBC的快速视频服务’，那就是不对的。”
迄今为止，任何互联网用户都可以证明，那种情况还未发生：通过宽带服务商的服务访问Google，并不比访问当地学校或公共服务网站更快。莱斯格博士说，所有这些都可能改变，因为多数美国家庭只有两家宽带提供商可以选择，有时候一个选择也没有。如果网络运营商开始限制一些内容的访问速度，那消费者将没什么力量与它们抗争。
但即便互联网的那种噩梦成真(这似乎是不太可能的，因为无线宽带不久将成为一个强劲的竞争者)，美国相当强有力的反垄断法也足以应付这种不公正。
在此之前，把简单的逻辑定律运用在互联网监管上才有意义：不要解决尚不存在的问题，否则只会创造出更多麻烦。
