For over a decade the Internet has been my playground. I’ve joined hundreds of communities, browsed an infinite number of websites, and enjoyed hours upon hours of music and video. In this time I’ve also used a number of devices to access the web, including my laptop, smartphone and game console. My XBOX 360 in particular has not only become my go-to box for Internet gaming, but also for streaming movies, television, and music.
In November my console was updated to include ESPN3. To my surprise, much of the content was unavailable, despite being an XBOX Live customer with a broadband Internet connection. As it turns out, Time Warner Cable had disabled much of my access to this feature, on a device purchased independently of their services, because I didn’t pay for a cable package that included ESPN3. I was angered and frustrated that my ISP had blocked features of a product they did not sell or control.
Around the same time, a new gadget called the Fascinate was released – a smartphone running Google’s open Android platform. The reviews came in and everyone was shocked to find that Verizon had locked the search engine to Bing, with no way to change it. Anyone who bought a Fascinate could search Google with their desktop – why not their phone? For an ‘open’ platform, it was frustrating to see how much choice it gave wireless ISPs, but took away from consumers.
Now, I make a living designing and developing websites. The food on my plate depends on an open Internet, where people can access whatever they want, however they want. And I love the Internet. While it’s not without its faults, I appreciate being able to listen to music on Grooveshark, Last.fm, Pandora, or Hype Machine. But it’s not only that – I love choice. I can search with Google, Yahoo!, or Bing. I can watch videos on Hulu, YouTube, or Vimeo. I can even create a new website and become the next Twitter or Facebook. And it’s all because I pay one monthly fee for general Internet access. That’s the power of the web – information and innovation without limitation.
I created TheOpenInter.net to depict a time in the future when ISPs control the Internet and all data is not downloaded equally. While creating the site’s design, I had the idea to bundle Netflix and Hulu as a package ISPs required you to buy. Halfway through development, I questioned the reality of my portrayal. Was I too far off-base? Then to my surprise a Wired article titled “Mobile Carriers Dream of Charging per Page” showed almost the exact same scenario. While there is no documentation within the article to prove wireless carriers have any current plans to implement a similar pricing structure, the fact that evidence exists to suggest its consideration is frightening.
So, why is network neutrality important? Why should ISPs treat all data the same? The web, more significantly the wireless web, is the next great frontier. If you think that an Internet service provider would never block access to Netflix, or remove Google Maps from your phone if it meant a higher monthly payment, then you live in a fantasy world. They’ve been testing the waters for years.
Think about this: back in 2003, I never thought my bank would carelessly manage their assets and put our economy at risk. But I guess we couldn’t have seen that coming, right?
yopichoi said:
Hi Michael,
That’s a great little site. I love the way you presented it. It simple and lovely!
I think this site could be incredible helpful to all of those that aren’t to familiarized with the Internet and obviously aren’t aware of what’s going on with this whole “Open Internet thing”.
I guess you have been already asked to do this, but I’ll do it anyway, do you think there’s a chance to do the site in a different language? More specifically in Spanish, I’m not sure if I can of any use, but at least I know I could help translating the site to Spanish.
Regards.
P.S.: I apologize for my English, I know isn’t good, but Spanish it’s my native language (I’m Mexican).
Stacy Cowley said:
Very cool! I put up a post about it: http://cnnmoneytech.tumblr.com/post/2498795095/screenshot-cnnmoney-ive-been-a-big-fan-of-web
Josh said:
Why do you feel so entitled to other people’s property? If a “big fat cat corporation” has made the multi-billion dollar investment into the hardware that makes the internet possible, don’t you think they are entitled to determine how it is used?
If you ever get around to building your own high speed internet, I would applaud you making it completely open and free.
Michael Ciarlo said:
Josh,
ISPs make billion dollar investments in infrastructure with tax-payer dollars. They also operate on wireless spectrum owned by the public. It costs them no more to transmit data from YouTube than it does from Netflix, and I refuse to be charged based on falsities and greed.
ISPs can claim they need the ability to shape traffic to consistently provide quality service, but I’ve gotten the exact opposite with AT&T even without such ‘protections’.
This debate has nothing to do with entitlement and everything to do with ensuring the internet remains a place of innovation and freedom, without the burden and cost of corporate abuse.
Vincent C said:
Hi Michael,
Is it possible that i translate your website in French ?
In European Union, we have too a big debate about net neutrality and your website is a good tools to explain net neutrality.
I’ve reserved a domain name in French for that : neutralitedu.net
Best wishes,
Michael Ciarlo said:
Vincent,
Thanks for your interest in translating my website. I hope to offer translations in the near future, I just need to find some time :)
Vincent C said:
hey,
I have send an email to contact@arc90 before your comment, i don’t know if you get this !?
I have translate your website, and i’ve changed the names of isps and famous website by french isps and french famous websites.
You can see this here : http://www.neutralitedu.net
Could I send this on twitter and facebook ?
Tim said:
Why try to solve a problem that doesn’t exist? The internet is not broken and the free market regulates it very well. If you let the federal government control the ISPs then you let them also control the content you see…in other words, give the Feds an inch and they take a mile…In every case. I’m sorry but “net neutrality” is in reality what we have already.
Andrew Procter said:
Tim,
It’s what we have for now. But that doesn’t mean it will stay that way. While I see what you mean about the feds taking a mile, it’s only going to be worse if people aren’t educated about the issue. All Michael’s site does is raise awareness, which is always a good thing. When it comes time to vote about this issue, I’d rather have an educated public than one who is voting based on the commercials the media conglomerates will no-doubt put out in favor of a locked-down internet.
Kurt said:
@Tim:
The problem does exist, and this great presentation only provides the consumer-facing side. Level 3 is contracted by Netfilx to provide the streaming movie catalog. Comcast flat-out blocked Level 3 from providing that service, claiming it took too much bandwidth on Comcast Network. The issue regarding bandwidth was secondary, because Comcast could have upgraded the equipment at any time, since they were receiving revenue (from customers) specifically to provide that service.
Comcast required Netflix/Level 3 to pay an additional service fee to provide the movie streams. The direction that these “middlemen” are taking is to provide you the services you want ala carte, like a pimp, and taking a kick-back for those services being provided like a crooked cop. In either case, the CUSTOMER is all ready paying for that service, and their little toll fees are contrary to the agreement you have with them to provide service.
Ralph said:
Whether Youtube costs extra depends on Youtube, not on any ISP. Likewise with Pandora or any other popular service. Time Warner wants to charge for its own content on ESPN? There is no neutrality principle that can stop them. But if they hope to profit from some other company’s content, they will obviously have to pay the originating company most of the fees. If Youtube’s corporate parent (Google) wants Youtube to remain free, it will remain free. Conversely, if Google demands payment, you will pay, regardless of the identity of your ISP.
More worrisome to me is the economic fate of millions of independent web sites that do not have the backing of any large entity. If ISPs decide to charge consumers for access to the small sites that are now free, or to require the sites themselves to pay for a slot on the ISP’s service offering, it might become difficult or impossible for independent owners to stay “on the air” without turning to paid subscribers and/or advertisers. Ultimately, such an environment would endanger the freedom of expression of web site authors. It would be a great loss to our country and to the world if…
[[ TO READ MORE OF THIS COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE TO THE TIER 1 BLOCK, SUBJECT TO IDENTITY APPROVAL. CLICK HERE TO QUALIFY NOW! ]]
Julius said:
Michael Ciarlo: You should render it in other languages.
I’m mexican, my native language is spanish, so I can offer you an accurate translation. Write to me to this email please.
Greetings
Julius
Archimagow said:
Hablo por la traduccion sobre ello solo deven usar google croome o poner la direccion en el traductor de Google