Following up on my last post about net neutrality, this BBC News article gives a very brief synopsis of the major issues and players in the net neutrality debate in the United States. We have AT&T, Verizon, and the Department of Justice on one side versus Microsoft and Google on the other. This debate could decide not only the question of net neutrality, but also, who really does rule the world?
Net Neutrality, Net Diversity, and the Future of Legal Research
The subject of net neutrality came up on Capitol Hill Wednesday, as Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., took on FTC Chairman Deborah Majoras at a reauthorization hearing by the subcommittee on Interstate Commerce [see article in PC Magazine. Dorgan is pushing for net neutrality legislation while the FTC has urged legislators not to rush to action. Without net neutrality, it is argued that, absent regulation, telecom and cable companies will allow communications conglomerates to buy better internet channels to consumers, thereby creating tiered access for content providers.
If the direst predictions about the consequences of net diversity come true, what would happen to online legal research? Would Lexis and Westlaw be able to buy their way into the first tier, thereby relegating all smaller competitors like HeinOnline to the slow, or even the shoulder, lane? Or would the price of admission be too steep even for Lexis and Westlaw? Would local, state and federal governments get a fast lane pass so that primary law services like Oklahoma’s excellent OSCN could still thrive? What would become of academic sites, like Cornell’s LII? Legal researchers have become increasingly dependent on a (roughly) single-tiered internet. How this tale will actually unfold remains to be seen, but law library directors may wish to include the emergence of a tiered internet in their disaster preparedness plans.
