NWA-PCUG Newsletter Article, October 2009
Net Neutrality
By Ira Wilsker, APCUG Director;
Columnist, The Examiner, Beaumont, TX; Radio & TV Show Host

Iwilsker@apcug.net
(click to email author)

WEBSITES:
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
http://www.savetheinternet.com
http://www.ncta.com/IssueBriefs/Network-Management.aspx?view=2
http://www.ustelecom.org
http://www.ustelecom.org/Issues/PreventingInternetRegulation/PreventingInternetRegulation.html

I have taken pride over the years that I have written this column to offer my readers a non-political and non-partisan break from the political tribulations of the day. Unfortunately, sometimes politics and technology clash, with each side having an argument supporting its opinions, and expressing why the other side is wrong. A long standing dispute rages in the technology world about the internet, and who should control the access to it. This is not some type of political censorship like what we often see in totalitarian regimes, but an economic issue where strong powers on both sides of the issue are taking a stance on the future of the internet. This is not a classical Democrat versus Republican, or liberal versus conservative squabble, but a dispute about the potential revenue streams and the use and control of the bandwidth that we have available. This often heated discussion has made it to the halls of Congress and to the bowels of the regulatory agencies, with heavy input from the participants, all of whom are trying to protect their turf. While the issues are complex, and I will try to explain both sides of the issue in an impartial manner, the name of the controversy carries the simple moniker of “Net Neutrality”.

According to Wikipedia, “At its simplest, network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. Net neutrality advocates have established three principal definitions of network neutrality: Absolute non-discrimination; Limited discrimination without QoS (Quality of Service) tiering; and Limited discrimination and tiering.” The expression “Absolute non-discrimination” was defined by Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu as “The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally.” The part about limited discrimination without quality of service tiering basically means that while internet services providers can offer different levels of service (speed and volume) to their customers at different prices, they should not charge special fees for a higher quality of service, or priority in delivering information. University of Michigan Law School professor Susan P. Crawford "believes that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for quality-of-service considerations." “Limited discrimination and tiering” means that there can be no exclusivity in service contracts, and that internet service providers and carriers cannot charge users for exclusive access to another’s content. This concept is not some new creation of the internet age, but a well established 150 year old legal principal. Again, according to Wikipedia, “In 1860, a US federal law was passed to subsidize a telegraph line, stating that messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority ... An act to facilitate communication between the Atlantic and Pacific states by electric telegraph, June 16, 1860.”

Google has published a policy statement (google.com/help/netneutrality.html) that says, “Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.” Google is not alone with this concept, and has been joined by many large content providers, including Yahoo!, Vonage, eBay, Amazon, EarthLink, and others

What is happening today is that some internet service providers (ISPs) are either hindering access to popular online video and audio services, or implementing a special fee or charge to the user in order to be able to access these services at the users’ normal access speeds. Some of the carriers engaged in these practices cite the infrastructure cost that this high bandwidth usage incurs, and that it is only fair to charge a premium price to those who are taxing the capacity of the systems. According to the website SaveTheInternet.com, “… cable and telecommunications companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner of wanting "to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. These companies want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data ... to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video while slowing down or blocking their competitors."

The cable and telecommunications companies are represented by the US Telecom Broadband Association (http://www.ustelecom.org) and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association , (http://www.ncta.com), which have aptly presented the side of the big carriers. The design, construction, maintenance, and upgrading of the intranet infrastructure are very capital intensive, and the demands on the networks are increasing dramatically. As stated by Wikipedia, “… telecom providers should have the ability to provide preferential treatment in the form of a tiered services, for example by giving online companies willing to pay the ability to transfer their data packages faster than other Internet traffic. The added revenue from such services could be used to pay for the building of increased broadband access to more consumers.”

The NCTA, on its webpage (ncta.com) says, “There is no evidence that consumers are being prevented from accessing any lawful content on the Internet, nor are broadband providers impeding customers from subscribing to broadband applications that don’t harm the network. The best consumer protection is a vibrant marketplace in which choice for providers exists and allows subscribers to switch if they're not satisfied with the current service. The biggest risk of Internet Regulation is that it will freeze investment and innovation in further broadband deployment and development.” USTelecom, representing the broadband providers, states on its webpage (ustelecom.org), “This unnecessary intervention would slow broadband deployment and the arrival of a wide variety of pro-consumer advances. Regulating the Internet would delay the arrival of life-enhancing technological advances in health care, education, the economy and beyond by sending a distinct chill through the investment climate. This ‘about face’ for U.S. innovation policy would undermine the critical progress being made in today’s competitive Internet marketplace, where adoption is accelerating across demographic groups and nearly 1,400 companies are racing to extend broadband’s capacity and reach throughout our country. Instead of slamming on the brakes of our information economy and slowing the arrival of new innovations in our lives, our government should stay focused on broadband deployment and pro-investment policies that bring the high-speed Internet and its many possibilities to all Americans.” According to Wikipedia, “John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel of Verizon, … has argued that they will have no incentive to make large investments to develop advanced fibre-optic networks if they are prohibited from charging higher preferred access fees to companies that wish to take advantage of the expanded capabilities of such networks. Thorne and other ISPs have accused Google and Skype of freeloading or free riding for using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build.”

None of the combatants in this battle are claiming that the internet should be fiscally free, or that it is wrong for the ISPs to charge different rates for different speeds and bandwidth limits. What is in dispute is whether all content should be treated (and charged) equally in terms of bandwidth and speed used, and whether the users of heavy content providers (such as streaming DVDs by Netflix) get equal access to the capacity the internet. Hypothetically, an ISP could charge a user a premium price for priority access to streaming DVDs, and thus transmit that data ahead of his neighbors’ email, or offer faster speeds to users of its own content than it does to other providers. Another consideration under dispute is whether an ISP should be able to provide a higher quality of service and speed to its own digital phone service than it does another digital phone service, such as Vonage or Skype. Discrimination of these types is contrary to the concept of “net neutrality”.

This is a tough issue with valid points made by both sides. Hopefully the above content and links will provide the reader with adequate information and resources on both sides of the debate such that he can make his own decision. As the technology advances, and our demands on the internet infrastructure increases, we as a society must come up with some viable way to ensure that the capacity is there when and where we need it.

Click here to return to top



==================================================================