The Death of Net Neutrality?
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | September 11, 2007 | Share This
|
|
On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice issued its official opposition to the regulation of Internet access and traffic - more commonly known as “net neutrality” - in comments to the FCC. The DOJ said:
However well-intentioned, regulatory restraints can inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation, and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of “neutrality” would do just that with respect to the Internet. Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to “promote competition and reduce regulation,” and to “encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.”(3) In response, the Commission has deregulated various aspects of broadband services.(4) Against this background, commenters proposing special regulation of the Internet should bear a substantial burden of demonstrating that it is appropriate.
The net neutrality movement, spearheaded by people like those behind the site savetheinternet.com and supported by web giants like Google and eBay, among others, supports an un-tiered, unfiltered, and unfettered Internet, one in which ISPs are not allowed to discriminate by charging more for “priority” traffic. Essentially, net neutrality would prevent ISPs from acting as virtual toll booths for content providers. Susan Crawford’s explanation of the concept is helpful:
Think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as a sidewalk. The question is whether the sidewalk should get a cut of the value of the conversations that you have as you walk along. The traditional telephone model has been that the telephone company doesn’t get paid more if you have a particularly meaningful call — they’re just providing a neutral pipe.
This argument is about whether companies selling highspeed transport mechanisms for the internet should be allowed to price discriminate — charge different “content providers” (like YouTube) for the privilege of reaching you and me. Because Americans have so few choices of broadband access providers, allowing these providers to leverage their market power over transport in order to have exclusive control over “programming” online is a matter of great concern.
The risk is that the network providers will keep everyone who hasn’t paid protection money to them at 2001 speeds.
Instead In a bizarre analogy, the DOJ also compared information on the Internet to packages sent via USPS. Savetheinternet.com’s blog lists the recent history of the U.S. government’s involvement with AT&T, with a link to the telecom’s anti-net neutrality filing. That blog also describes Japan’s successful implementation of net neutrality and its positive effects for innovation, which allowed Internet access and speed in that country to surpass that of the United States. Declan McCullagh of CNET lists “ten things that finally killed net neutrality”, which also outlines the issue’s history. But is net neutrality dead? Let’s hope not. Today, reports emerged that Comcast has cut off broadband service to some of its users, which may revive the issue, and it’s rumored that Apple may enter an FCC auction for airwaves, which could place it in the running as a wireless Internet service (and phone) provider. This would also hopefully infuse the marketplace with some competition and force the telecoms not to mess with neutrality.
Topics: Legal Issues, Technology |
[…] article that calls the DOJ’s defense of its opposition to net neutrality […]
The DOJ did us all a service with its filing in opposition to Net neutrality regulations. Hard as it might be to imagine, online broadband applications are just beginning to show what they can do for America. We’ve barely passed the kickoff in a great game of innovation that will offer Americans — all Americans — the kind of fundamental opportunities that were the stuff of dreams back when everybody was talking about the Information Superhighway. I mean opportunities in health care, education, economic development and delivery of government services. Net Neutrality regulations would stop the broadband investment that makes all this possible.
Comparing the internet to the sidewalk is absurd. The sidewalk is publicly owned and nobody pays directly to walk on it.
Comparing it to the USPS is closer to the mark but the best comparison is to FedEx/USPS or the airline industry. Internet services are so ubiquitous, its easy to forget that the networks that they travel over are PRIVATELY OWNED.
Should these transporters be allowed to charge more for bigger freight? Or should all of us subsidize the costs for frequent shippers or over-sized freight?
I guess if you’re Google or eBay, the latter makes sense. But it doesn’t make sense for me.
[…] net neutrality only days ago, it looks like the debate over net neutrality may come to an end (http://www.searchviews.com/index.php/archives/2007/09/the-death-of-net-neutrality.php). The possibility of keeping the internet free of extra charges by the internet service providers […]