On June 8th, 2006, the US House of Representatives passed the Communications, Opportunity, Promotions and Enhancement Act (COPE), without provisions for what has widely become known as “Network Neutrality”. With the Democrats regaining of control in the House and Senate, there has been increasing hope for a bipartisan agreement, and moves to include language which restricts the large telecommunication companies from creating a “tiered” Internet. “The Senate bill fails to promote innovation and competition by prohibiting broadband network operators from unfairly discriminating against their rivals.” (Inouye et al.) This has attracted much criticism . “The primary problem with the proposals is more complicated than their advocates have admitted in their calls to ensure that all Internet content is treated equally.” (Koprowski) Once the 110th Congress convenes on January 3rd, 2007, there should be a better understanding among congressmen and women about what Net Neutrality restrictions mean. Broadband services, the FCC's involvement thereof, and Infrastructure development are among many issues that the COPE act address.
The large majority of Americans haven't the slightest idea what a non-neutral net would entail, and why companies such as AT&T and Verizon are taking great steps to avoid this. Some Americans trust that their ISP has their best interests in mind, that they will have access to whatever they want, because they pay for access to the World Wide Web. We sometimes forget that it is each individual's contribution, however small, taken collectively that makes the Internet so robust. A non-neutral net would mean that Internet Service providers would be able to prioritize certain traffic, and thus drastically alter the way we surf the Internet. The creation of a “tired” Internet would mean favoring services owned by the cable providers and that small Internet start-ups, as well as the major players, such as Google, Youtube, and others, would need to pay more to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for equal exposure.
The idea of “Network Neutrality”, and the potential for abuse by service providers, is highlighted at length by Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu. He has been credited with coining the phrase, and has accomplished much in the way of alerting the public to its importance. In his 2003 paper “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination”, he explains other restrictions placed on those who subscribe to their services, and advocates for the preservation of an “evolutionary”, or “Darwinian” Internet. Professor Wu agrees that the “end to end” model of the Internet, where alternative forms of traffic should not be discriminated against, allows for a “Natural Selection”, if you will, for those applications which are the most innovative to survive. “Email, the web, and streaming applications are in battle for the attention and interest of the end users. It is therefore important that the platform be neutral to ensure the competition remains meritocratic.” (Wu 6)
The traffic on the Information Super Highway we have all come to know as “free and open”, is already being modulated by the highly integrated media giant gatekeepers, and is in danger of being “taxed”, if not kept neutral. These companies, such as AOL/Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T, do not own the traffic they ferry just as the telephone companies do not own the traffic of voices along their lines, and if Net Neutrality restrictions are not imposed, the opportunity exists for an absolute and unmitigated control of how and when you can send and receive information on the Internet. The effects on E-commerce could change it from an open market to a highly controlled, advertisement driven arena where any new and innovative idea dies when they cant compete with the vertically integrated holdings of Big Telco.
As far as the Internet goes, its infrastructure is universally unique. Most people would agree with the analogy to our public highway system. Our government awards contracts to certain companies to improve the infrastructure, paving the way for more development, innovation, and improving the Public Good. There are, however, toll systems set up to help maintain it. However, this does not take into account the fact that the Internet grew up on a diet of small, independent and private innovators. This was the American Dream in action; during the Dot-Com Boom of the 1990's, anyone with a good idea could become rich, and many did. Multi billion dollar companies arose from these start-ups, and a few survived the popped bubble at the beginning of the 21st century. If we do not learn from that lesson, we will be damned to another collapse due to a frantic grab at revenue. It is obvious to see how discriminatory an Internet “tax” would be, and an unjust, unchecked highway owned by Media Giants could cripple our economy.
In figure 1, we have a basic representation of what is referred to as the “Internet Backbone”. The physical structure itself is comprised of several different networks, each one being owned by an ISP, such as AT&T, Sprint/NEXTEL, or is run by the military. Local ISPs then connect to this backbone. This becomes problematic, however, when bandwidth promised to the customer is restricted (Wu 37), and inefficiencies in the service are apparent because of a lack of foresight (Wu 38) . Until the telecommunication companies are forced by the FCC to keep up with the innovation of new technologies, and divorce themselves from the trends which led to the bubble burst in 2002, we will start to see a decline of the Internet as a tool, rather, it will resemble mainstream television.
Figure 1
Currently, many Internet Service Providers are “throttling down” certain forms of data, without any input, guidance, or control by the FCC. This is called Traffic Shaping, and some forms of data which are being altered include VOIP, P2P, and Torrent traffic. “The wicked ISPs have, increasingly, opted to block BitTorrent (and indeed other P2P protocols as well) using technology known as traffic shaping.
” (Livingstone). The problem with this is that only some of this data may be illegal, and the only way to tell for sure is to violate the privacy of their own customers. So why would these companies go to such great lengths to shape what traffic goes through them, the Gatekeepers? The answer is simple; to control, if only slightly, what we get when we pay for our bandwidth. With The United States lagging behind 14 other countries in Broadband Penetration, its clear to see that the infrastructure of the Internet is underdeveloped, and in danger of literally dying. (see fig 2.) It is therefore our elected official's jobs to place restrictions to prevent this monopolizing of web content, and to encourage progress in Infrastructure development and multimedia innovation through regulation by the Federal Government.
Figure 2
The lack of a robust Internet Backbone, slow implementation of fiber-optics, coupled with an overcharging of the consumer, leads to mistrust of Big Telco, and necessitates a need for a supplementary network. Metropolitan Wireless Mesh Networks are an obvious choice, but although they cant yet fully supplant our current Infrastructure, even small cities are trying to take advantage of this technology. It offers a solution which is not heavily regulated by the FCC, and can increase Broadband Penetration. Providing High-Speed Internet for a large number of people is now being taken up by the Local Government, and increasing innovation. Recently, The City of Carbondale’s Information Systems Division awarded a contract to do just that. Commenting “Technology is crucial to growing commerce and tourism in downtown areas”, Lt. Governor Pat Quinn catches the essence of how Infrastructure development and an open Internet creates opportunities for small businesses.
We can, however, see exactly how this opportunity can be closed to the general public and future start-ups on the Internet. If the telecommunication companies and broadband service providers wished to slow, or even completely ban the traffic of certain applications, advertisements, or even certain E-commerce, currently there would be nothing stopping them. If the people who write programs, such as web browsers, have these extra hurdles in front of them, how could they compete in such a market? If a company's advertisements load slower than others, or even not at all, how can they survive?
We can also see that the public is still mostly unaware of the subject of network neutrality, or at least are being mislead. Currently, “[T]he National Cable and Telecommunications Association is taking its Net Neutrality campaign to a bigger stage, showing 30 -second TV spots which dismiss the debate as “mumbo jumbo,” nationally.” (Wilson) Ironically, this campaign has extended beyond using their own media to confuse the public, and posting videos on sites such as Youtube.com, which is one type of innovative web application threatened by their proposed “Hands Off”, and non-neutral Internet.
A large majority of consumers would agree that placing restrictions on companies which traffic information would seem to violate our right to Free Speech. However, it seems as though the telecommunications companies have been enjoying the “status quo”, and any move to prevent them from monopolizing the infrastructure for a hegemonic control of E-commerce threatens their hold on it, and is met with their lobbyists. What most people fail to realize is that the most wonderful recent innovations are “bandwidth intensive”, and our infrastructure must improve at a faster rate, rather than capping customers speeds, or charging them more. This leads me to my final observation about how Grassroots organizations are taking up the issue, defying Bi-Partisan Politics, and what the Internet could resemble in the near future if the dialog of Net Neutrality is included in the COPE Act.
Works Cited
Inouye, Dorgan, and Boxer, United States. Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006. 109 Cong.
Koprowski, Gene “Putting the Net in Neutral: The Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act” EContent; Sep2006, Vol. 29 Issue 7, p8-8, 1p
Livingstone, Adam. "A Bit of Bit Torrent Bother." News.Bbc.Co.Uk. 28 Feb. 2006. Producer, BBC News night. 27 Nov. 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi
Press Release,“Lt. Gov. Quinn awards $17,875 grant to create a Wi-Fi community Downtown Carbondale Goes Wireless!" www.illinois.gov. 9 Oct. 2006. 27 Nov. 2006
Wilson, Carol “Net Neutrality Not Going Away” Telephony 9/11/2006, Vol. 247 Issue 14, p9-9, 1/2p
Wu, Tim, "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination", Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 2, p. 141, 2003
Figure 1:"Ipnetmapbig." Map. edatarack.Com. edatarack.com. 27 Nov. 2006
Figure 2: "Broadband Subscribers Per 100 Inhabitants." Chart. Website optimization. International Telecommunications Union. 27 Nov. 2006
