Network Neutrality

Network neutrality is the principal that every piece of data sent over the internet should be treated equally, regardless of content or author. This neutrality is a wonderful thing as it provides equal opportunity to home bloggers and major corporate sites. It's a system of democratic expression, and it's what allows such a vast range of voices to be heard online.

This could change. In the US, those who own the wires want to control what is sent down them.

This might seem like fair capitalist enterprise. However, many would argue that it's dangerous. The communications wiring of a nation is such basic infrastructure that allowing it to be controlled and exploited by large companies risks stifling competition and creating content monopolies.

The Internet has never been truly neutral. Service providers prioritise some types of information over others. File sharing is often restricted to prevent it slowing other people’s connections, while online games are allowed higher speeds to ensure smoothness. This can be a good thing as it lets internet providers ensure a smooth connection for applications that need it most.

These variable restrictions presently only control types of data though, not the data contents. The fear is that corporations want to charge to deliver content by certain authors faster than others. For example, video from a major company might stream much faster than that uploaded by a friend, because the company can pay for prefered treatment.

Certain telecoms companies in the US, including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner, have been attempting to change the law and gain far greater control over the content they deliver over the internet. Groups that pay up would have their content delivered much faster than those who don't or cannot. The fear is that this will create a two-tier internet, with large corporations paying for preferred delivery and cutting out smaller independent ventures. This in turn may cause a pay-per-view internet where websites have to charge users in order to pay the telecoms companies for letting you see the site. There is even the risk that they could decide not to deliver some content at all, effectively censoring for capitalist motives. Some see this as a danger to free online democratic expression.

It isn't simply a case of the people vs corporations. Major groups like Google and Microsoft want to ensure net neutrality because they believe that the telecoms companies could charge them heavily to maintain their presence on the internet. Groups such as SaveTheInternet.com have major funding to fight the telecoms companies and it's become a propaganda fight for the goodwill of the US government. The biggest star in favour of network neutrality is Tim Berners-Lee, the Inventor of the World Wide Web. He has gone so far as to claim that "neutral communications medium is essential to our society".

The frontline of this struggle then is in Washington. Things look very different on our side of the pond.

The US telecoms giants hold far greater power than service providers in the UK where wire ownership is different and there is a far greater diversity of providers. Here, the users have the power.

Ofcom currently don't see net neutrality as an issue as they believe that the EU's tight competition laws will prevent any form of dominant control over what we view. The European Commission has committed to net neutrality. Viviane Reding, the EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media recently stated, "I firmly believe in net neutrality. I firmly believe in the principle of access for all. The Commission does not want to see a two-speed internet where the rich benefit and the poor suffer". She has promised that these principals will be enshrined in the new Telecom Package of EU regulations.

It's also relatively easy to change internet service provider in the UK, so those providers who attempt to raise charges or restrict content will be rapidly out-competed and neutral alternatives will remain viable. While much of our online content comes from the US, our access to that content would not be affected by charges from US corporations. Some even suggest that a net-neutral Europe could have a strong competitive advantage over a non-neutral US.

Lastly, it has been suggested that the development of fibre-optic connections to the home will increase internet speeds to the point where restrictions are irrelevant.

In my view, UK users presently have little to fear from the battle being fought in the US. But it never hurts to keep an eye on those who'd undermine the revolution for profit. The internet has changed so much, we must be wary of attempts to change the internet. Regulation can be productive, but restriction is poison to the beautiful anarchistic spirit of the web.

Voice

This is the second part of my thoughts on Vice magazine. You can read part one here.

Before it was Vice, it was the Voice of Montreal. Then Voice. Then Vice. This seems appropriate to me, because behind the veneer of fashionable sleaze, it's the voices in Vice I want to read. The serious content in the magazine takes two forms; local voices and immersive journalism. In both cases the emphasis is on storytelling. Both are hugely powerful forms.

Where other publications can seem a little earnest, a little knowing or a little cynical, Vice delights because the content is often unexpected. It doesn't just contain a mixture of articles; each article can contain both humour and tragedy, usually catching you off guard for profound effect. You never quite know where things are going with each tale or anecdote. Local contributors usually have a wearily detached outlook on terrible events, enabling a clarity of description which is more startling than the tired, laboured prose usually used to describe tragedy. The writing trusts to the readers values for effect. The plain descriptive style and heavy use of photo-journalism results in a show don't tell approach, where the maturity of the reader to draw conclusions is trusted and depended upon. This promotes a shared respect between the reader and the narrative voice, and lends an inclusive profundity to the issue in hand.

Of course, the writing is not unique in style or content. A great deal of similar writing could be found online. The distinction is in the delivery method. Vice packages remarkable stories and presents them in a palatable context. You might say it hides the serious content behind the jokes, the news behind the "in other news". The grand effect of an issue of Vice is something close to Bathos; the juxtaposition of sublime and ridiculous for effect. It's a very seductive effect.

The editorial choices behind each issue are as significant as the writing. Unlike most mainstream media, Vice makes extensive use of first hand accounts and local reporting. There is a priority on carefully selected amateur content. And as amateur writing, most readers will imagine it more true, or more real than the polished presentations of the ordinary news. Vice always seems to prefer the inside, subjective account, even when they use their own writers to facilitate the account. There is no pretence towards objectivity, simply transparency. The articles nearly always take the form of directly reported speech or plainly laid out interviews with little preamble. Occasionally they send their own reporters to report the experience of being immersed in different sub-cultures; but these reports too are highly subjective and personal reflections. It's all a buffer against lazy reporting, attempting to share interesting experiences rather than mere facts.

Blogging from Iraqi homosexuals, Puerto-Rican convicts or US military deserters is probably available if you look, but in reality most of Vice's 80,000 UK readers don't look, or didn't know to look. It is the selection of content by Vice which is significant. The editors find hidden issues and neglected voices, send writers to places where misery isn't urgent enough for mainstream attention, and generally search for fresh perspectives. This is what's most important about the writing for me; the willingness to direct attention to areas outside the narrow focus of main news coverage. Every issue opens my eyes in some way, and moreover, the humour and human voices are a perfect antidote to the news fatigue caused by obsessively factual, statistical reporting.

So it's the voices I love about Vice. It's the diversity of voices and the wealth of experiences in each issue, packaged up with humour and style, that bring me back each time. It's not perfect, and perhaps sometimes a little too aware of it's own power, but on the whole - Vice is good.