Peter Griffin: Telcos out to create internet class system

Just when the internet is at its most useful, its most efficient, someone threatens to throw a spanner in the works - and it's all because of money.

Oh yes, not only is it enough to charge us to connect to the internet and to access premium content websites, now internet access providers want to charge for faster delivery of web traffic and certified spam-free email messaging, thereby creating tiered classes of citizenship for the internet based on how much you're willing to pay.

It's led consumer advocates and those who want to keep the web as open and democratic as possible to this week appear before a US Senate committee examining proposals from telcos to charge extra for preferential delivery of internet content.

Opponents of that scenario are applying to the internet the concept of "network neutrality", which would ensure all internet traffic is treated equally by internet providers.

It's a good idea and one that may have to be enshrined in legislation as telcos, furious at missing out on the internet bonanza, seek to re-engineer the web to favour those with the biggest chequebooks.

Just imagine the scenario if the proposals of the telcos came about: sign up with Telecom Xtra and get your email before everyone else in the country. Or surf the web via a Clearnet connection and download a file in two-thirds the time it takes on other connections. These are just random, made-up examples, but they point to what could be the norm if several classes of internet citizenship are allowed to be formed.

The likes of Microsoft and Google, terrified that competitors will pay to get preferential treatment on the web, are all in favour of neutrality.

The founder of the protocols on which the internet operates, Vinton Cerf, is giving evidence to the committee in his capacity as an executive of Google. He's already made his views plain: "The internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services," said Cerf, who ironically worked for WorldCom for years. There should be "a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule", he added.

The telcos, on the other hand, are supported by various free-market think tanks and they're determined to introduce a tiered cost structure.

Verizon Communications' John Thorne showed the true intentions of the telecoms industry last week when he railed against "Google utopianism".

"The network builders are spending a fortune constructing and maintaining the networks that Google intends to ride on with nothing but cheap servers," said Thorne. "It is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers."

This argument has emerged as new services such as video on demand and internet telephony become more common. These "real-time" services require faster connections and transmission of data. The telcos and cable TV operators have spent billions upgrading their networks to provide them and now want speedy recovery of costs. That's fine, but the operators should bill users at each end - as has always been the case - rather than become middlemen as well.

The message from the US Government will hopefully be that it will do everything to maintain a level playing field on the web. But the same argument for differentiated service levels on the web is being presented by US internet providers when it comes to delivering email.

Any company targeting you in email marketing campaigns pays its internet provider for transmission of the email. Now internet providers want to charge extra to ensure those messages aren't passed through its powerful spam filters. America Online and Yahoo will introduce the optional email service that will attach a certified seal to email marketers send out, proving the email is the genuine article, not the spoof of a con artist. For the privilege, subscribers will pay between .25c and 1c per email message delivered. With direct marketers sending out millions of legitimate messages each month, the voluntary scheme could turn out quite expensive.

I can see the point of it: in the age of phishing, where sophisticated hackers mimic the websites and emails of legitimate organisations in order to steal your personal information and passwords, trust is a fragile thing.

But drawing a line between free and premium delivery of email is unnecessary, will be undermined by hackers anyway and strikes at what makes the email system so effective in the first place - its openness.

It's sort of like the difference between standard mail and fast post. You pay a premium to ensure your message gets there faster. But it penalises legitimate companies and means their marketing costs will increase and be shunted on to us.

Even if their emails get through the spam filters of your internet provider, there's a chance your personal spam filtering software will relegate it to the spam folder anyway. Both scenarios are just money-grubbing schemes that will erode the effectiveness of the internet, which should be left alone.

To the telcos and internet providers: come up with something that's worth buying and that really adds value, instead of trying to clip the ticket of others passing along the highways of our world wide web.