|
04.07
Keeping an
Eye on Network
Neutrality
By George W. Zobrist
You may have read about the
growing network
neutrality (NN) controversy in the news recently. At the
heart of the issue is the free and open nature
of data exchange on the Internet, and whether it will continue to
be so. The battle lines are drawn between
the owners of the physical networks that carry
data (e.g., AT&T and Verizon) and content
providers (e.g., Google and Yahoo), who are closely aligned
with consumer advocacy groups.
The FCC has already signaled its
willingness to adjudicate NN disputes, and
Congress remains poised to enact legislation
that would preserve "equality" for content
providers. Legislation was tabled in 2006, but
new bills are already making the rounds on
Capitol Hill.
What Is Net Neutrality?
Generally speaking, NN adherents
believe
that all data is equal and should be moved along
the network without prioritizing
content. Advocates also espouse the notion
that if a network is to be useful, it must carry
every form of information and support every kind
of service, on an equal basis. One of the first
areas to apply this concept was the telegraph
industry in the 1860s. Then a federal law stated
that messages were to be sent on a first
come/first serve basis, except for government
messages, which took priority.
Content providers/consumer
advocates and physical network providers are
just beginning the struggle over the fate of NN. The content
providers don't want the physical network
providers to have the ability to charge more for
Quality of Service (Q of S), arguing that if the physical network providers
start developing their own content, they will
then discriminate against competing content
providers through pricing and delay of
service.
Net neutrality supporters also argue that if the
physical network providers charge for different
levels of Q of S, then only the large content
providers would have the resources to obtain
premium services, while small businesses might
not have the budget needed to compete. Such a
disparity would put small businesses at a
disadvantage, which could ultimately have a
chilling effect innovation.
On the flip side, the
physical network providers claim that to upgrade
their networks they must be able to price
according to quality of service. Some valid reasons
exist for pricing
for Q of S, chiefly in the areas of
medical diagnosis transmissions, emergency and
first-response services (e.g., police, fire and
rescue), and to discriminate with regard to
SPAM, viruses. If sufficient bandwidth is in
place, no need to discriminate between
the users of the physical network exists. But as Internet
usage continues to expand, especially through
multimedia usage, service interruptions will become more common if the physical
networks are not upgraded. Network providers
contend that without the added revenue from
scaled pricing, there is little incentive to
make those upgrades.
Net Neutrality In the News
One example that NN
proponents use to illustrate the potential for
discriminatory practices is the Madison River
Communications case (2004), in which a rural phone
utility blocked its customers from accessing voice over Internet
(VoIP) service from Vonage. When the FCC opened
an investigation, Madison River backed off and
agreed to unblock its VoIP services and pay a
$15,000 fine.
Net neutrality issues also threatened to
delay the recent AT&T/SBC merger, but the deal was approved by the FCC with
a provision by listing the
FCC's network neutrality principles as a
"concession." But the FCC's NN principles are simply
guidelines, and are not legally binding. Other
suggested concessions by AT&T include the launch
of at least 10 wireless broadband trials in the
2.3 GHz and 2.5 GHz bands by the end of 2007,
and offering naked (or standalone) DSL for up to 30
months after the merger is approved (see FCC
policy statement 05-151, 2005 and parts extracted from
www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/78860).
The FCC's involvement in NN-related cases, even though its
jurisdiction over such cases hasn't been clearly
defined by Congress or the courts, means that
the agency believes it has the authority to
regulate telecommunications providers on NN
issues under the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended in 1996.
Of course, if challenged, and if the courts rule
otherwise, the real battle over NN will begin in
earnest.
It is interesting to note that a 2005 Supreme Court decision
(FCC v. Brand X) deregulated broadband services
(i.e., Open Access), making the government the ultimate arbitrator of
what phone companies could charge. But the FCC
and Congress are now involved in possible
re-regulation of the Internet via Net
Neutrality.
The Legislative Front
On 8 June 2006, the House of Representatives passed
the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and
Enhancement Act of 2006 (HR 5252); however, an amendment
to institute stricter NN requirements was
rejected before the House passed it. The Senate
never took a vote on the measure.
On 28 June 2006, the Senate Commerce
Committee passed its own Telecom bill (S 2686);
a Net Neutrality safeguard amendment failed when
the committee deadlocked
11-11. The bill died at the end of the 109th
Congress.
The most recent piece of
legislation to address NN is a bipartisan bill (S.
215) introduced on 10 January by Senators Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia
Snowe (R-Maine). Their bill would ban cable
operators, phone companies and other providers
of broadband Internet access from engaging in
discriminatory management of their networks to
the commercial disadvantage of Web-based
providers of content and applications.
References
-
Wall Street Journal,
15 Dec. 2006, 18 May 2006, 16 Feb. 2006,
12-13 Aug. 2006
-
Tim Wu, Journal of
Telecommunications and High Technology Law,
2003
-
D. Faber and M. Katz, Hold
Off on Net Neutrality, WashingtonPost.com,
19 January 2007
-
Madison River
Communications, FCC File No. EB-05-IH-0110,
2004
Dr. George W. Zobrist is
professor emeritus at the University of
Missouri-Rolla, Department of Computer Science,
IEEE-USA's Member Activities editor, and former
editor of IEEE Potentials. Comments may be
submitted to
todaysengineer@ieee.org.
|
E-mail
this page to a friend
