Today is the big FCC vote on Net Neutrality and it is not looking good. You can watch with me here at 10:30 am (EST). I'll also be tweeting the vote live - follow me @jcstearns.
As I spend most of my time writing and thinking about the future of journalism I wanted to take a minute to consider what this debate might mean for the future of news and information online.
It's the best of times and the worst of times for journalism right now - as new innovative experiments emerge around the country and traditional journalism institutions stumble and try to adapt. While there is a lots of debate about what the future holds, everyone agrees that the web is today's printing press and delivery truck. And it has been the free and open internet that has allowed innovative new journalism projects to emerge and thrive.
As more an more news and information moves online, we need to ensure that the flow of information on Internet is free and unencumbered. With Net Neutrality we can support newspapers transition to the web at the same time that we foster a new cadre of diverse and local voices online. Net Neutrality ensures that WestSeattleBlog and Gotham Gazette can be accessed just as easily as the Seattle Times website or the New York Times. Net neutrality is about creating a level playing field for all voices.
A few months ago I saw this tweet: @themediaisdying wrote "NOT LOVING THIS: RT @romenesko: AP considers charging for early delivery of news stories to some online customers. http://is.gd/.... In our 24 hour news cycle, you can imagine how having the Associated Press serve as a gatekeeper, providing advance news and info to those who can pay the big bucks, would be troubling.
The AP wants to be a gatekeeper in much the same way big phone and cable companies want to decide the winners and losers online. To understand how this gatekeeper function might work, see this image:
In the image above, that was taken from a presentation about technology that could be used to spy on people's internet traffic, your Internet service provider can see what you are doing and where you are going online and decide what to charge for what sites, and what sites can't load at all.
Imagine if those sites weren't YouTube, Skype and Facebook but instead, the New York Times, Fox News, Huffington Post, and your local neighborhood news blog. It's one thing if newspapers want to put up their own paywalls or sell subscriptions online - but is another thing if our ISPs are acting as middle men. If Comcast decided that the New York Times was going to cost you 2 cents per megabyte but their special Comcast News site would be free - who do you think is going to win that fight?
We can't afford to let big phone and cable companies be the arbiters of free speech. Yesterday Senator Franken called Net Neutrality the first amendment issue of our time. And he is right. The ACLU, Amnesty International, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and other free speech and free press organizations have spoken out about this issue.
When the FCC votes in just a few hours all signs suggest they will put in place a half-baked, fake Net Neutrality rule with loopholes big enough to drive a truck through - and it may not even cover the wireless web. People are accessing news and information on their mobile phones more than ever before, and this rule won't protect them at all.
It was historic citizen and internet activism that helped even put Net Neutrality on the agenda at the FCC. That is a huge win. Now it is up to all of us who care about the future of the Internet and th future of journalism to stand up for free speech and keep fighting for real Net Neutrality.