network neutrality
for a list of resources on this topic, see the technology policy bibliography
by Pengtao Teng
What is "network neutrality"?
Network neutrality, often shortened as "net neutrality," is a principle regarding how the Internet should be run and regulated. It calls for no restrictions or censorship of the material and data that crosses the Internet. Ideally, the role of the Internet Service Provider (ISP) in such a network would be minimal, as it will not be partial to the contents being accessed by users and the protocols that occur between web surfers and their clients. Every application would be supported and treated equally. Google.com, a fervent supporter of this concept, describes net neutrality as "the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet."[1] Without net neutrality, broadband carriers would be able to discriminate data and give priority to the applications and contents of their choosing, who would most likely have to pay a fee to the carrier. Advocates for net neutrality are in favor of federal laws to maintain the neutrality principle.
Who wants a neutral network? Who wants a non-neutral network?
The debate regarding network neutrality has divided the business community, and pitted two powerful factions against each other. Online enterprises and businesses such as Google, Amazon, Ebay, Microsoft and online investment firms strongly advocate for network neutrality, and lobbies for federal regulations to ensure the neutrality of the web. On the other side are the large telecommunication companies such as Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T, as well as cable companies that provide broadband access and smaller ISPs.
Free speech advocacy groups, such as the ACLU, CCTV Center for Media and Democracy, and Free Press, also support net neutrality, as well as advocates of other interests-organizations such as PETA, Gun Owners of America, Feminist Majority, MoveOn.org, AARP, and the Christian Coalition of America. These groups, along with Internet community and networking groups, trade unions, small business owners, consumer advocacy groups, web music publishers, bloggers, various law professors and education centers have established an organization called SaveTheInternet.com to fight for net neutrality. All in all, the organization has a total of more than seven hundred groups and individuals.[2]
On the opposite spectrum, groups that oppose government regulation and intervention, such as the Cato Institute, Center for Individual Freedom, Citizens Against Government Waste, and the American Conservative Union, have grouped to form Hands Off the Internet, which advocates against government regulation to establish net neutrality.[3] The Communications Workers of America, which represents almost a million workers in the telecommunications industry-some of whom are responsible for the physical infrastructure, such as installing fiber-optic cables, that makes the Internet possible-also opposed such federal regulation.[4]
Key individuals in the Informational Technology industry, such as Bob Kahn, inventor of the TCP protocol, and Dave Farber, the so-called "Grandfather of the Internet," have also spoken against net neutrality, claiming that it would hinder the process of innovation. The Justice Department also opposes net neutrality legislation on these grounds.[5]
What are the economic, deontological and relational arguments on either side? What are the free speech concerns implicated? Who would benefit from a neutral network? Who would benefit from a non-neutral network?
The subject of network neutrality must be addressed on two fronts: economical and deontological. However, there are many instances where the two overlap and work against the other, causing schisms among supporters and opponents of net neutrality.
Since it's creation, the Internet has been accepted as a free method of spreading information. Unlike other communication mediums such as cable TV and radio, the Internet allows all individuals and even the smallest organizations to establish their voice through the World Wide Web.
To people like Vinton Cerf, "Chief Evangelist" at Google, advocator for net neutrality regulations, the worldwide network that is the "Internet" manages the sole task of transferring packets of data from the client to the user. It is, metaphorically, a truck that delivers goods. Under such an outlook, the Internet must observe the "Common Carriage" principle. Anyone who's able to pay the "freight," which is the fee for broadband on both sides, can "ship" anything they wish across the Internet. The Internet can be compared to a telephone company: as long as both ends pay the phone bill, anything can be said across the phone line.[6]
This end-to-end principle calls for a "dumb network" that would not, for instance, give preference to the data of one online video website that has established a relationship with the ISP over another website which has not ("smart network"). A non-neutral network would prove hazardous to online startups, which cannot compete with "preferred" companies for equal exposure to consumers when the latter can reach their consumers more quickly.[7] Because most consumers only have access to one or two broadband providers, which are typically the large telecommunications companies or the cable networks, consumers would not have other options to turn to if their local broadband carrier began to adopt discriminatory practices.[8]
Opponents of this philosophy argue that the Internet has never been an equalizing mechanism, and that to adopt this view would hinder further technological development. The Internet originated as a network between major universities, and from its birth has been discriminatory.[9] Some note the apparent hypocrisy of companies like Google, which runs a non-neutral search engine while trumpeting net neutrality.[10] Additionally, in the era of Web 2.0 where services like streaming video and Voice over IP (VoIP) requires an immediacy of service, which requires priority to be given to these emerging technologies in order to develop. Unless ISPs can guarantee a low latency web service, technology such as telemedicine, in which doctors can control robots to perform surgeries remotely, will never be guaranteed to work. Thus, forcing net neutrality upon the Internet would cripple the possible products at different price levels, or tiers, that ISPs can offer to content providers, each of whom have different speed needs. This is true for other markets such as energy, where different quality of gasoline and natural gas is certain consumer and industrial products. At the very least, they argue, companies should be allowed to prioritize the data flowing its network no handful of application would consume the bulk of the bandwidth.[11]
In even the most "wired" of countries, such as Japan and Switzerland, which has speeds of more than 100 Mbits/second, broadband networks are frequently clogged by high-bandwidth activities such as Bittorrent.[12] In the United States, a fifth of consumers don't have access to broadband, and most broadband networks only have speeds of around 2-3 Mbits/second.[13] Because the cables that physically transfer data from one party to the next are rather expensive to build, companies argues that it is unfair for ISP to front the cost for infrastructure while content providers can to use it for free. Bandwidth is still a limited resource, and certain online tasks such as peer-2-peer sharing and multimedia consumes a lot of bandwidth, which slows down Internet access at the expense of all other customers. ISPs argue that they should be allowed to charge a premium on the providers of high-bandwidth-usage content, which in turn can help improve its product, which is to deliver high-speed Internet access to all its consumers.[14] Content providers only pay for the cost of getting their information online, regardless of which ISP's network the content travels to, which means consumers bear the burden of paying for infrastructure. By offering a high-speed route to customers who can pay for such, it is not only following the principles of free market but also hedging funds to construct wider Internet highways so that America can catch up with other countries in the digital age.[15] In the eyes of net neutrality opponents, high-tier services of guaranteed access speeds are equivalent to cell phones networks, which works alongside the traditional landline services but offers distinct advantages over traditional telephones, which warrant higher costs.[16] Companies like Google argue that they already pay for their servers and bandwidth, and should not have to pay for extra speed.[17]
Some advocates for net neutrality call for Congress to establish regulatory measures to ensure networks stay neutral. However, other net neutrality proponents fear that this would open the dangerous doors of censorship and government bureaucracy similar to those regulating the television industry, in which profanity and obscenity is banned to suit the eyes of children. Bloggers especially are weary of regulation, since they benefit the most from the freedom of expression that the Internet currently allows. Opponents of net neutrality argue that enforcing such regulation would be an impossible task, as no expansion of the FCC would be enough to monitor that service providers are treating all information on the Internet equally. However, others argue that without such regulation ISPs will be free to discriminate against certain speech that they disagree with, such as political blogs or websites that oppose the corporations that own the ISPs. ISPs rebut this argument on the grounds that forcing all speech to through their networks would be a violation of their own free speech rights. Groups who oppose regulation believe that any corporate censorship on the Internet can be more efficient resolved through anti-trust lawsuit rather creating another branch of government to regulate the Internet.[18]
What bills have been introduced in Congress on the issue of network neutrality?
The claim by net neutrality advocates that the Internet is subject to the common carrier principle relies on the original infrastructure upon which the Internet is built: the telephone modem.[19] When landlines were first being built to bring the telephone into American homes, Congressed passed the Manns-Elkins Act in 1910 to ensure that regional monopolies by large telephone companies would not disrupt telephone calls between customers of locations. It effective made telecommunications networks neutral and companies were not allowed to give preference to certain calls or drift away from fair pricing.[20] Thus, in the days before broadband, when most Internet access was dial-up, net neutrality held place, since all data flowed through phone lines. As broadband access grew, via DSL and cable, net neutrality principles no longer could be applied. In 1996, the Telecommunications Act deemed broadband access carriers as separate from telecommunications carriers.[21]
On August 2005, the FCC ruled that DSL lines no longer could be considered telecommunications, but rather, informational services, just like cable has been.[22] Though it maintained that consumers are entitled to four principles of Internet access, including access to all lawful content and run any application they wish, the decision left ISPs with more room to manage their networks.[23]
Many bills have been brought forth to Congress in attempts to establish net neutrality, either by amending the provisions of previous Telecommunication Acts or by setting out new provisions to prohibit the establishment of tiered service. One current proposal to amend was drafted by Senator Snowe, with sponsorships by prominent Senators Leahy, Obama, and Clinton. Titled the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act," it called for no interference on the part of ISPs in regards to the content and applications being delivered on their networks, and only allowed ISPs to prioritize according to the user's preferences without charging a fee to content providers.[24] Previous attempts included the "Network Neutrality Act of 2006," which coupled with the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006" would provide more stringent guidelines on net neutrality, while opening the possibility of faster broadband for activities like video services.[25],[26] A bill entitled "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006" would have expanded the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, which would have made it an anti-trust violation to use discriminatory measures such as banning or blocking particular websites and contents, as well as protocols to calculate priority of applications on networks in order to manage web traffic.[27] All attempts to pass net neutrality legislation has failed.
Do other countries have laws regarding network neutrality?
Japan, South Korea, and France are among countries that have adopted net neutrality principles into law.[28] However, these nations still has yet to address complicated questions over what is or is not allowed under such policy. Japan, for instance, has allowed it's telecommunications company NTT group to establish a next-generation internet access system that would allow tiered pricing on the user side, and currently considers whether to charge heavy internet users a premium.[29] South Korea fell into controversy when several Korean ISPs decided to ban Vonage, an American VoIP service, from being active on its networks, to the dismay of many in the American military.[30] A European Commission's report on net neutrality concluded that differentiation of products by ISP providers might be beneficial if it is non-anti-competitive.[31] However, within the same service, it promoted a policy of neutrality similar to net neutrality.[32] In the UK, the principle of net neutrality is not looked upon too highly; a debate regarding the topic was conduct in 2006 in which the panels concluded that the best approach would be free market.[33] Consequently, several ISPs in the UK, including a company named Tiscali, have stated they would begin limiting services to high-bandwidth services, like BBC iPlayer, through traffic shaping.[34] T-Mobile U.K. has a policy against VoIP and Internet texting through its cellular Internet networks.[35]
What other technology policy issues are implicated? What legal issues are implicated? What statutes have been passed in the US and internationally? Have cases begun to arise?
The debate over net neutrality also impacts technology policy issues such as VoIP and Peer-2-Peer file sharing. File sharing and video streaming can consume enormous bandwidth, and are often the first services to be effect when networks digress from the net neutrality principle.[36] The free-of-speech problems can arise if ISPs begin discriminating against websites with small financial backing who cannot afford high-tier services. Because each nation have their cultural norms of what is acceptable on the Internet, no international coalition has formed to promote network neutrality globally.
There have been many instances where ISP has explicitly banned certain websites and services, either on purpose or by mistake. The most prominent example is the feud between Comcast, America's largest broadband provider, and Bittorrent, a popular peer-2-peer file sharing application. Comcast had previously singled out Bittorrent for bandwidth restriction. The two has recently settled their dispute, and Bittorent has agreed to use "smart" networking protocols to address the flow of Bittorrent data over Comcast's network.[37] Comcast currently faces a class-action lawsuit for restricting other applications on its networks.[38] Other instances of data discrimination includes an instance in 2006 when AOL blocked emails from an organization that had a petition against the company on its website.[39] AOL's partnership with Goodmail to offer better email delivery to Goodmail's clients has already generated controversy.[40] In Canada, a telecommunications company named Telus banned access to a web address that hosted the site of one of the company's union, which at the time was on strike.[41] Verizon has also involved itself in a case of data discrimination when last year it rejected text messages sent from an abortion rights group, Naral Pro-Choice America, despite the messages being sent to customer who had purposely signed up for the service. Verizon claimed the right to block such text messages, even though other major cell-phone carriers did not object or block the group.[42]
[1] Google, Net Neutrality, available at http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html, Last Accessed April 6, 2008
[2] Save the Internet: Members, http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members, Last accessed April 7, 2008
[3] Hands Off the Internet: Member Organizations, http://handsoff.org/blog/member-organizations, Last accessed April 7, 2008
[4] Telecom News: 'Net Neutrality' Backers Have Their Own Agenda, CWA News, available at http://www.cwa-union.org/news/cwa-news/page.jsp?itemID=28099797, Last accessed April 6, 2008
[5] Justice Dept. against ‘Net neutrality,' Associated Press, September 6, 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20625194/
[6] The Great Debate: What is Net Neutrality, Center for American Progress, DC Transcription & Media Repurposing, July 16, 2006 at www.americanprogress.org/kf/060717%20net%20neutrality.pdf, p. 5
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid, 3.
[9] Ronda Hauben, From the ARPANET to the Internet, available at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/tcpdigest_paper.txt, Last accessed April 8, 2008
[10] Johna Till Johnson, Net Neutrality? Google, Go First! Network World, August 1, 2007, at http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2007/080107johna.html
[11] Robert Hahn and Scott Wallsten, The Economics of Net Neutrality, (June 2006), at The Economists' Voice.
[12] Ibid, 13.
[13] Ibid, 3.
[14] Arshad Mohammed, SBC Head Ignites Access Debate, Washington Post, November 4, 2005, at D01.
[15] The Great Debate: What is Net Neutrality, Center for American Progress, DC Transcription & Media Repurposing, July 16, 2006 at www.americanprogress.org/kf/060717%20net%20neutrality.pdf, p. 4
[16] Net Neutrality, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality, Last accessed April 6, 2008
[17] The Great Debate: What is Net Neutrality, Center for American Progress, DC Transcription & Media Repurposing, July 16, 2006 at www.americanprogress.org/kf/060717%20net%20neutrality.pdf, p. 4
[18] Ibid, 9.
[19] Ibid, 3.
[20] James S. Speta, A Common Carrier Approach to
Internet Interconnection, 54 Federal Communications Law Journal (2002), p 261-2
[21] Telecommunications Act of 1996, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996, Last accessed April 7, 2008
[22] FCC Classifies DSL as Information Service, http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20050805a.asp, Last accessed April 7, 2008
[23] Federal Communications Commission, New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf
[24] S 2917 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2917:
[25] H.R. 5252 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5252rh.txt.pdf
[26] H.R. 5273 at http://markey.house.gov/docs/telecomm/MARKEY_002_XML.pdf
[27] H.R. 5417, at http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/hr5417-109.pdf
[28] Robert D. Atkinson and Philip J. Weiser , A "Third Way" on Network Neutrality (May 30, 2006), http://www.itif.org/files/netneutrality.pdf, Last Accessed April 7, 2008
[29] Michael Kanellos, Japan's NTT Tests TV Service, CNet News, October 8, 2007, at http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9792947-7.html
[30] Follow Up to Korean VoIP Blocking, http://www.voip-news.com/blog/20060630/follow-up-to-korean-voip-blocking/, last accessed April 8, 2008
[31] Commission of the European Communities, Impact Assessment, European Commission 2007, 92
[32] Ibid, 64.
[33] Andrew Orlowski, Google Snubs Net Neutrality Debate, The Register, March 20, 2007, at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/20/uk_net_neutrality/
[34] Phil Coger, Net Neutrality Needed in UK? Bit-Tech.net, August 14, 2007, at http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/08/14/net_neutrality_needed_in_uk/1
[35] T-Mobile Bans VoIP and Text Messaging, May 10, 2006 http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/voip/tmobile-bans-voip-and-text-messaging.asp
[36] Net Firm Warns on Web Video Costs, BBC News, August 17, 2007, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6944176.stm
[37] David Kirpatrick, Comcast and BirTorrent Settle a Dispute over Downloading, CNN Money, March 28, 2008 at http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/27/technology/comcast.fortune/index.htm
[38] Email Delivery Neutrality Gone Forever, available at http://blog.eucap.com/network-neutrality/email_neutrality_gone_forever.html, Last Accessed Feb 28, 2008.
[39] Stefanie Olsen, AOL Charged with Blocking Opponents' Email, ZDNet News, April 13, 2006, at http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6061089.html
[40] Eric Bangeman, Comcast Hit with Class-Action Lawsuit over Traffic Blocking, Ars Technica, November 14, 2007, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071114-comcast-hit-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-traffic-blocking.html
[41] Telus Cuts Subscriber Access to Pro-Union Website, Canadian Broadcasting Centre, July 24, 2005, at http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/24/telus-sites050724.html
[42] Adam Liptak, Verizon Rejects Text Messages From an Abortion Rights Group, N.Y. Times, September 27, 2007, at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html
|
