This is the html version of the file http://www.educause.edu/i
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

CACHED COPY 09-21-2006  MPG

NEW YORK TIMES
May 28, 2006, Sunday
By ADAM COHEN
(NYT); Editorial Desk

Page 1

May 28, 2006

Editorial Observer; Why the Democratic Ethic of the World Wide Web May Be About to End

Adam Cohen

The World Wide Web is the most democratic mass medium there has ever been. Freedom
of the press, as the saying goes, belongs only to those who own one. Radio and television
are controlled by those rich enough to buy a broadcast license. But anyone with an
Internet-connected computer can reach out to a potential audience of billions.

This democratic Web did not just happen. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the British computer
scientist who invented the Web in 1989, envisioned a platform on which everyone in the
world could communicate on an equal basis. But his vision is being threatened by
telecommunications and cable companies, and other Internet service providers, that want
to impose a new system of fees that could create a hierarchy of Web sites. Major
corporate sites would be able to pay the new fees, while little-guy sites could be shut out.

Sir Tim, who keeps a low profile, has begun speaking out in favor of ''net neutrality,''
rules requiring that all Web sites remain equal on the Web. Corporations that stand to
make billions if they can push tiered pricing through have put together a slick lobbying
and marketing campaign. But Sir Tim and other supporters of net neutrality are inspiring
growing support from Internet users across the political spectrum who are demanding that
Congress preserve the Web in its current form.

The Web, which Sir Tim invented as a scientist at CERN, the European nuclear physics
institute, is often confused with the Internet. But like e-mail, the Web runs over the
system of interconnected computer networks known as the Internet. Sir Tim created the
Web in a decentralized way that allowed anyone with a computer to connect to it and
begin receiving and sending information.

That open architecture is what has allowed for the extraordinary growth of Internet
commerce and communication. Pierre Omidyar, a small-time programmer working out of
his home office, was able to set up an online auction site that anyone in the world could
reach -- which became eBay. The blogging phenomenon is possible because individuals
can create Web sites with the World Wide Web prefix, www, that can be seen by anyone
with Internet access.

Page 2

Last year, the chief executive of what is now AT&T sent shock waves through
cyberspace when he asked why Web sites should be able to ''use my pipes free.'' Internet
service providers would like to be able to charge Web sites for access to their customers.
Web sites that could not pay the new fees would be accessible at a slower speed, or
perhaps not be accessible at all.

A tiered Internet poses a threat at many levels. Service providers could, for example, shut
out Web sites whose politics they dislike. Even if they did not discriminate on the basis
of content, access fees would automatically marginalize smaller, poorer Web sites.

Consider online video, which depends on the availability of higher-speed connections.
Internet users can now watch channels, like BBC World, that are not available on their
own cable systems, and they have access to video blogs and Web sites like
YouTube.com, where people upload videos of their own creation. Under tiered pricing,
Internet users might be able to get videos only from major corporate channels.

Sir Tim expects that there are great Internet innovations yet to come, many involving
video. He believes people at the scene of an accident -- or a political protest -- will one
day be able to take pictures with their cellphones that could be pieced together to create a
three-dimensional image of what happened. That sort of innovation could be blocked by
fees for the high-speed connections required to relay video images.

The companies fighting net neutrality have been waging a misleading campaign, with the
slogan ''hands off the Internet,'' that tries to look like a grass-roots effort to protect the
Internet in its current form. What they actually favor is stopping the government from
protecting the Internet, so they can get their own hands on it.

But the other side of the debate has some large corporate backers, too, like Google and
Microsoft, which could be hit by access fees since they depend on the Internet service
providers to put their sites on the Web. It also has support from political groups of all
persuasions. The president of the Christian Coalition, which is allied with Moveon.org on
this issue, recently asked, ''What if a cable company with a pro-choice board of directors
decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high-speed network to
encourage pro-life activities?''

Forces favoring a no-fee Web have been gaining strength. One group,
Savetheinternet.com, says it has collected more than 700,000 signatures on a petition.
Last week, a bipartisan bill favoring net neutrality, sponsored by James Sensenbrenner,
Republican of Wisconsin, and John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, won a
surprisingly lopsided vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

Page 3

Sir Tim argues that service providers may be hurting themselves by pushing for tiered
pricing. The Internet's extraordinary growth has been fueled by the limitless vistas the
Web offers surfers, bloggers and downloaders. Customers who are used to the robust,
democratic Web may not pay for one that is restricted to wealthy corporate content
providers.

''That's not what we call Internet at all,'' says Sir Tim. ''That's what we call cable TV.''

Copyright © 2006 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted with permission.