Network Neutrality has been a topic of political discussion for several years but has come to the forefront under the Obama Administration, which is a proponent of the concept. I had no real understanding or feelings on the matter until a friend’s recent blog posts got me thinking about the global socio-economic issues surrounding the topic.
According to PC Magazine’s Encyclopedia: “(NETwork neutrality) A level playing field for Internet transport. It refers to the absence of restrictions or priorities placed on the type of content carried over the Internet by the carriers and ISPs that run the major backbones. It states that all traffic be treated equally; that packets are delivered on a first-come, first-served basis regardless from where they originated or to where they are destined….The Internet has had net neutrality since its inception, which has leveled the playing field for all participants. This is a very contentious topic because major carriers have lobbied the FCC to eliminate network neutrality in order to charge large sites for their traffic.”
Wikipedia adds that: “Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks.”
As Ken Carter mentioned in his speech in Rome (available on his blog: http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/05/neutralita-della-rete-e-aspetti-socio-economici/#comments) “We think it is unfair to give preferential treatment to certain customers (those who are willing to pay more). At the same time, we also think it is economically inefficient to mandate a single (or limited set of) Internet access options for everyone, including those who are willing to pay more for premium services. So, how does one determine which means of achieving differentiated services is socially permissible and economically desirable?”
In a capitalistic society, it is fair to give a better class or quality of service (QoS) to those customers who are willing to pay more. This may not be a politically correct statement nowadays, but it speaks to the core of capitalism; and the United States is a capitalist country (for now). However, PC Magazine goes on to clarify that…
”Although it might seem reasonable to charge extra fees to sites with huge traffic, the implications down the road are more alarming. If net neutrality were abandoned entirely, at some point, owners of all Web sites might have to pay the carriers’ fees to prevent their content from bogging down in a low-priority delivery queue.”
Now we begin to see that the issue of net neutrality is actually three separate issues: Cost, Bandwidth (the amount of data that can be transferred), Speed (how fast the data is transferred), and Content (the type of data that can be transferred).
Another issue to add to the discussion is how wide a “net” to cast. Depending on who is talking, “Net” can either refer to “Network” or “Internet”. Nobody seems to apply the term to internal networks or “Intranets”, though I suppose this could be a third option as the Wikipedia definition above seems to suggest.
Access to the Internet is a telecommunications service and should be treated as such. Whether the Internet Service Provider (ISP) is a cable company, a telephone company, or a satellite service provider, access to the Internet in the United States is a service that is sold to the consumer and the seller (or re-seller as the case may be) has every right to make a profit. Thus, cost is the first issue involved in an Internet neutrality discussion.
I suppose that the proponents of net neutrality would like to have subscriber costs the same for everyone for any given class of service – i.e.: a 256 kbps connection costs $25 a month and a 1.5 mbps costs $75 (we will allow for some economies of scale). My first argument against this is that it is government mandated price fixing that will eliminate competition in the marketplace. Another argument against this approach is based on the premise that services cost more in certain areas because the provider’s costs are higher. Are gas prices the same across the country? Cable TV service? Electricity? Phone service? No, they are not and neither should network service. No wonder most cable and telecommunications companies are against net neutrality.
The amount of data that is transferred (not just in terms of bandwidth but is terms of maximum data transfer amount restrictions as in the case of Comcast last year) is another topic of debate: should everyone be given the same transfer rate? Should the bandwidth pipeline be fully opened for everyone? This again becomes a consumer and provider cost issue – why should I pay for an ultra-high bandwidth connection (assuming it’s available) at home when I rarely have the need for anything near it’s capabilities. Availability is another issue as many residences in rural areas are not able to receive broadband over DSL due to distance limitations, and Cable service is often not run to the street, never mind the houses. Wireless may be an option in these cases, either via a locally broadcast ISP or a satellite subscriber service, but can we really expect these wireless services to be provided at the same cost as terrestrial based services? In this case, net neutrality falls victim to demand, pricing, and available infrastructure.
Speed and bandwidth seem to go hand in hand, but there is a subtle distinction with respect to how packets of information are routed. This is can be exemplified by looking at two sets of signals hypothetically sent out over the internet – the first is by Joe who sits at home all day updating his Twitter and Facebook status; the second is Joe’s neighbor Frank who has a VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) phone and needs to make an emergency call to the poison control center. Should these signals be treated equally, or should one take priority? What about a personal Twitter post versus somebody searching the Internet for a job, or school, or streaming music? Here, there are too many variables and it is not cost effective to prioritize signal routing on a large scale across the Internet – net neutrality must win this one, all information packets must be given the same priority level and routed at the same speed regardless of size or content. In the future it may be possible and cost effective to give priority to certain emergency signals but I am against anyone being able to pay for priority routing across the Internet. I am in favor of paying for the privilege to transmit more data but against regulating speed or priority status.
Content is another case where I stand in favor of net neutrality, though in some cases I am hesitant to do so. The debate is over whether or not it is permissible for an ISP to block certain content from being transmitted or viewed over the Internet. The primary argument against net neutrality in this case is when something is deemed morally reprehensible: extreme premeditated violence, illegal activities, and slanderous or libelous activities. A recent case of a man video recording non-consensual sex with his unconscious girlfriend (and posting the video on the internet) has brought this issue to the forefront of the debate.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee who is credited as the inventor of the World Wide Web (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners_Lee) is a proponent of net neutrality: “One of the things I always remain concerned about is that that medium remains neutral,” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7613201.stm). However, that same BBC post says that he too realizes that content is an issue that needs to be addressed, as he is increasingly worried about the way the web has been used to spread disinformation. The article continues to say that there should be a system of labels and branding on websites to indicate trustworthiness (and by correlation – content).
Does the right to freedom of the press (as put forth in the United States Constitution) extend to the global Internet? Probably not, but censoring or blocking content takes us down the familiar slippery slope of determining what is acceptable or offensive. Who can do that in an impartial manner? Labeling or branding websites has many of the same issues but is much less restrictive than simply blocking content.
So that’s two arguments in favor of network neutrality, and two against – I guess the “net” (outcome) is neutral!
As mentioned previously, it is important to remember that access to the Internet is a telecommunications service. Current policy in the United States allows for tiered services with respect to cable television as well as phone service.
Cable subscribers sign up for certain cable packages that may include a few channels they don’t actually want in order to gain access to other channels that we do want. The content is a tiered service, what is not tiered (yet) is the delivery time. Regardless of what packages I subscribe to, I get the same programming at the same time as my neighbors. I cannot pay extra to watch a show earlier – though by adding a Digital Video Recorder (DVR) subscription, I may pay extra to watch the show later than its air time!
Telephone services are also tiered. Calls placed at various times through the day or night may carry different costs. This is legally permissible and is done by the phone companies based on historically average call volumes throughout the day and throughout the week. You can sign up for additional long distance or international calling plans which are all tiered services. Again, what is not tiered is the time it takes for the call to come through; all person-to-person calls are routed with the same importance.
Electric rates are also tiered in the same respect: if you use more, you pay more. If you use more electricity at peak times, you pay more. But, everyone receives the same electricity at the same time (except in special circumstances). There will always be network outages; this is true in cable distribution, telephone distribution, and electric utilities. In certain extreme cases, the rules may change – or rules may come into effect where there were no rules previously. Do we need rules to keep the Internet neutral, or just to manage the exceptions? (Again see Ken Carter’s blog: http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/05/stefano-merlis-net-neutrality-paradox.) Sir Tim Berners-Lee recognizes this paradox on his blog post (http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144) where he admits that “Yes, regulation to keep the Internet open is regulation. And mostly, the Internet thrives on lack of regulation. But some basic values have to be preserved. For example, the market system depends on the rule that you can’t photocopy money. Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it.”
As I dig further into Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s blog, I see even more discrepancies with the previous definitions of network neutrality. He defines net neutrality with this example: “If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level….. Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the internet for free. Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn’t pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will.”
This is contrast to the Wikipedia definition “A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.” One definition is strictly based on quality of service (QoS) while other definitions seek to introduce content and platforms into the mix. In its strict networking definition, QoS is totally independent of content – data is data, and all data is equal.
Am I a proponent of Network Neutrality? I guess that depends on how you define it….
Ted
