The internet. That vast cyber space where any and all information is stored and easily accessed at the click of a mouse. Where anyone can publish and share data, links, and ideas freely and equally with anyone else on the planet. Until now.
The decision earlier this month by a Washington D.C. appellate court ruled that Comcast has the right to regulate types of internet traffic that use more bandwidth. By giving internet service providers (ISPs) the ability to limit access to certain types of traffic, the court decision jeopardizes the future of "net-neutrality" and will disproportionately affect the millennial generation, who utilize high-bandwidth services the most.
In 2007, the Associated Press determined through a series of nationwide tests that Comcast had been intentionally slowing the internet service of clients who used file sharing networks, particularly BitTorrent traffic. BitTorrents are used for sharing large data files directly between two internet users, without being stored on a central server. So-called "peer-to-peer" networks use a high volume of bandwidth and while it is associated with illegally sharing music, movies and software, peer-to-peer sharing can and is being used for increasingly legal purposes of data exchange.
However, because peer-to-peer traffic accounts for a majority of internet traffic, Comcast limited the connectivity of subscribers using such services. After the FCC sought to prohibit this practice in the name of net-neutrality, the principle that all internet access should be free and equal, a legal battle ensued. The District of Columbia United States Court of Appeals ruled that such conduct fell outside the jurisdiction of the FCC and that Comcast reserves the right to interfere with any of its clients’ web traffic.
The implications of this ruling are two-fold.
First, it is unclear what doors this decision will open for further discrimination by ISPs. Net-neutrality is a vague concept and the lines and boundaries of the internet are nebulous. If ISPs have the capacity to limit peer-to-peer sharing, what’s to say they can’t limit other types of high-bandwidth traffic like streaming video from YouTube or ESPN, or videochat programs like Skype? Internet subscribers using these types of traffic could be subject to slower service or higher fees in the future.
Second, the decision will have a disproportionate effect on the so-called millennial generation who helped develop and who use the majority of this traffic. While the internet has become universal in its usage, the high-bandwidth functions are used predominantly by high school and college aged consumers. As a result, it is this demographic who will be most adversely affected by slower service or higher fees. Whether it is from music sharing, watching streaming videos or video chatting with friends across the country, high internet traffic use has become the norm of this generation.
And while one teenager streaming video may not affect a typical family’s broadband account, an apartment of four college students sharing one internet account is the most likely to be subjected to ISP discrimination. The immediate effects of such limitations will likely only be felt by users in or just out of college who share accounts with others who are also using large amounts of bandwidth. However, in the long term, what is now considered high-bandwidth usage will eventually become the norm as the millennial generation grows older and knowledge of these relatively new technologies proliferates into older internet users.
So while this decision may seem largely inconsequential to many now, it is likely to have more widespread effects in the future. While it appears that there is little legal basis to date to prohibit the actions that Comcast has employed, it is imperative that Congress take steps to preserve net-neutrality. The internet is a valuable resource and, as the FCC v. Comcast case stated, “is arguably the most important innovation in communications in a generation.” It is also what has defined this generation, and regulations like those allowed by this decision put the full capacity of the internet as a resource in jeopardy, and with a negative burden shouldered by the world’s younger generations. It is critical that the free and full access to the internet and its content be protected and maintained.
Is this only going to be Comcast servers or all servers? It just sounds pretty ridiculous to me. I understand trying to decrease piracy, but if this is extended to all high bandwidth systems it is going to take away from our regular internet routines. This is just plain stupidity and there will probably be too much outrage for Comcast to actually go through with this.
ReplyDeleteThe specific case was Comcast v. the FCC, however with this case as a legal precedent, it opens the door for any other ISPs to act in a similar fashion. And Comcast has been interference with BitTorrents for three years now, although they will not acknowledge it outright. For more info about how they do this, refer to this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/ns/technology_and_science-internet//
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, the only time I have ever heard of peer-to-peer usage is for sharing music illegally. And so, I am curious what legal forms of sharing does occur--which you vaguely allude to at the beginning of your article. Especially if legal sharing is occurring, how can internet providers be sure not to block people who are acting legally? I was just shocked when this case was released and still don't understand its consequences, although I sense they will be great, as you explain.
ReplyDeleteLegal peer-to-peer sharing can be used for a lot of things. The most common use is for sharing large files like movies, which, yes, are often shared as pirated copies. However, with the prevalence of digital video cameras (especially HD, which make files even larger) if I made a film and wanted to send it to someone else, I could do so with a peer-to-peer program without having to upload it to a central server. P2P can also be used to share freeware and user-designed games, and it is utilized by Skype and instant messaging. And the answer to your other question is that ISPs are not concerned so much about legality as they are about the fact that these types of sharing use such a high amount of bandwidth. I think a lot of people don't understand the consequences quite yet. As I said in the response to the previous comment, it is more about the precedent set by the case for the ability to override net neutrality rather than the immediate impact that is so frightening.
ReplyDeleteBoo hoo. So what if a houseful of college kids gets slower internet for a short period of time?
ReplyDeleteLike you mentioned, the good majority of these peer-to-peer networks are being used for illegally downloading music, movies, TV shows, etc., unfairly penalizing those who put who worked so hard to create such content. Billions of dollars of revenue are being ripped away from these content generators so a kid doesn't have to work to make a dollar with which he can actually pay to see a movie.
These peer-to-peer networks have permanently damaged the entertainment industry, and it has had an extremely difficult time recovering. People are losing jobs because of the lack of content made today as a result of illegal downloading. While one download may not have a direct impact on someone's job, please consider the ramifications that people like you have collectively brought about as a result of such downloading.
Like I mentioned in my post and in previous responses, peer-to-peer sharing is being used in increasingly legal ways. Skype is probably the most popular example.
ReplyDeleteI am not advocating piracy, nor do I say whether or not I personally utilize the peer-to-peer capabilities of the internet for downloading copyrighted content.
What I am emphasizing are the problems this ruling will present by undermining net neutrality. While currently Comcast limits peer-to-peer sharing because of its high bandwidth (NOT on the basis that it can be used for illegal sharing), it paves the way for them to disrupt or charge more for high bandwidth activity like watching streaming video (yes, even legal ones like Hulu or YouTube) or playing online games.
And I argue that this is what presents a danger to the younger generation. The internet was created for unlimited collaboration and access between people around the planet. Net neutrality supports the principles of an open internet, free from restrictions on access to any types of content. The millennial generation is, at present, the most technologically literate. They know how to utilize the vast benefits of the internet, often in ways that use a disproportionate amount of internet traffic. A teenager in New York City is bound to use more bandwidth than a 75 year old woman in Nebraska that checks her email and the weather twice a day.
That is the nature of this generation and it is the nature of any technological revolution. Those generations that will follow will only continue to use the internet in more innovative and effective ways. They should not be unfairly limited in those pursuits by restrictions on access to certain types of content.