Net neutrality and the FCC: what's being done to preserve it
Net neutrality has quickly become a hot-button topic in online tech media (and increasingly in mainstream media) -- and for good reason. In an era defined by free information exchange via the wide open, largely unregulated internet, the concept of federal bodies in the United States stepping in on behalf of monied interests and redefining the way users, businesses, and information all interact is a grim and severe issue for the new world economy. On the internet everyone's presence and business is (and should be) equal; currently protecting that kind of equality is the FCC, some flimsy policy statements, and a smattering of senators who've yet to lock anything down. Read on to better understand net neutrality, and why we may not have it in the future.
Legal analysis by Neal Hannan, Seth Kertzer, and Zach Sharpe, and edited by Trevor Adler, law student members of the Columbia Science & Technology Law Review.
Intro
The issue of net neutrality (i.e. internet or network neutrality) is essentially a battle over how much control internet providers should have in deciding whether to give preferences to different sites and online applications. The battle lines are drawn over whether ISPs should have the right to exact direct control over the content and data flowing across their networks. For example, should Verizon Online DSL charge Google extra money to ensure that YouTube videos will download faster than, say, Revver videos? Or should Verizon be able to decide that YouTube is taking up too many resources on its network and make it run slower, or block it entirely?
Network neutrality advocates say that the internet should treat all information more or less equally, and that favoring some content, sites, or applications over others would take control from the users and force them to patronize only that which is favored by the ISPs and network operators -- presumably only the internet businesses with the most money to spend on this new kind of carriage deal. Opponents of network neutrality argue that because service providers are in a competitive industry, they have plenty of incentives to provide the best service possible, and that the government should let market forces dictate the results of network regulation.
In 2005, the FCC raised eyebrows when it investigated a small broadband provider, Madison River Communications, that had blocked access to Vonage's VoIP application. The matter ended when the provider agreed to unblock Vonage and pay a fine (more on this case later). Some argue that the source of the FCC's power to regulate net neutrality is based on the Supreme Court's 1997 decision allowing the agency to enforce "must-carry" regulations, which required cable companies to include local channels in their lineup. However, the reason net neutrality is such a contestable topic is because courts have not yet directly ruled on the jurisdiction of the FCC to enforce it.
Much of this issue boils down to whether ISPs can be considered "common carriers", a special legal designation for businesses and agencies available to the public for transportation of persons, goods, or messages. Such companies have been saddled with extra legal duties, namely of care and equal treatment, since the railroad days of the 1800s. Since the first Communications Act in 1934, the telephone system has been considered a common carrier and therefore subject to regulation by the FCC. So far, however, authorities have been reluctant to take a heavy-handed approach to regulating the internet.
The FCC's stance
In 2005, the FCC issued Policy Statement 05-151 [Warning: PDF], which addresses net neutrality. Policy Statement 05-151 did two important things. First, it declared that the FCC has the jurisdiction to regulate telecommunications providers to ensure they operate their networks in a neutral manner. This is important because federal agencies can only regulate areas or issues that have been placed within their rulemaking power by the relevant enabling statute -- in the case of the FCC, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended in 1996, is that enabling statute. An agency's rule over an area can be overturned in court if it is deemed unauthorized by the enabling statute.
If, for example, the FCC started issuing gun control regulations, those regulations would be thrown out in court because the Communications Act does not give the FCC any gun-control powers. If, however, a regulation is within an agency's jurisdiction, courts will be very reluctant to overturn it. Thus, Policy Statement 05-151 is significant because it declares that the FCC believes that the law enables it to create regulations to enforce net neutrality. Courts often give "great weight" to an agency's determination that it has a particular rulemaking power. Although a court could conceivably hold that the FCC has exceeded its authority, the deference courts give to agencies in defining their jurisdictions makes it unlikely1. More importantly, this statement also signals the intent of the FCC to start mandating net neutrality.
Policy Statement 05-151 is also important in that it set forth the following four principals regarding network regulation:
Pursuing policy statements
A policy statement (such as 05-151) is, unfortunately for those interested in preserving net neutrality, only a non-binding explanation of the FCC's position on a subject. Technically, a policy statement is not a binding rule because the agency hasn't completed the formal rulemaking process (which includes hearings, public comments, and so forth). But a policy statement does put companies on notice regarding how an agency such as the FCC interprets the law, and said agency intends to act on it.
The FCC has done more than issue non-binding policy statements, though. The net neutrality issue first entered the political consciousness in February 2005, when the FCC Enforcement Bureau began an investigation of Madison River Communications, a North Carolina ISP. Madison River had allegedly begun blocking ports to prevent the use of Vonage's VoIP service by its customers, probably to stifle competition of its local landline telephone business. The FCC sent a letter to Madison River officially opening an investigation into the practice, and within a month Madison River had signed a consent agreement, under which it agreed to cease blocking VoIP services and pay a $15,000 fine. In return, the FCC agreed to drop the action against Madison River.
What does this mean for net neutrality? Well, as a practical matter, it means that the FCC is willing to pursue net neutrality investigations. As a legal matter, it means very little. A consent agreement is the administrative version of an out-of-court settlement; we don't know what would have happened if the FCC and Madison River had gone through the whole adjudication process, nor do we know whether a court would accept the FCC's claims of jurisdiction on this issue. In other words, the law wasn't put to the test to see whether the FCC really does have control in maintaining net neutrality. What's interesting is that the FCC's investigation and letter came six months before the FCC issued Policy Statement 05-151. That means that the action was commenced without even an informal policy in place to back it up. However, the FCC seems to agree with the action in retrospect, since it responded by issuing a policy statement in favor of net neutrality regulations.
So it is safe to say that the FCC seems to be onboard with net neutrality. Though it hasn't issued any formal rules yet, its actions indicate that it will probably continue to enforce net neutrality in the future. Given that the FCC will likely be unfriendly to those opposed to net neutrality, the best way for opponents to win the fight is to pull the rug out from under the FCC by having net neutrality regulation removed from its jurisdiction. That means going to Congress to pass some new laws.
Congressional action & inaction
In 2006, the House debated two separate bills to address net neutrality. The first bill, H.R. 5417, was called the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act," and was never even brought up for a vote. The second bill, H.R. 5252, was called the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006." It passed the House by a vote 321-101, but never received a vote in the Senate. The two bills present a glimpse into the likely options that the 110th Congress will consider.
HR 5417 can be described as the stricter "neutrality" bill. It does not allow for the discrimination of data either by the source of content or the end devices employed by users. For instance, a broadband provider like Verizon could not favor YouTube over Revver. In terms of devices, it would not allow the ISP to discriminate what hardware (or software) is sending and receiving data, be it a TiVo or VoIP phone. The bill does, however, allow for prioritizing certain types of data (i.e. quality of service), provided that it does not discriminate amongst who is providing that data. Thus, if an ISP wanted to privilege VoIP or video data, used in applications where low-latency is critical, then they could freely prioritize those types of data to the end users' benefit. Because they are not allowed to discriminate based on the source of data, a broadband company could not enter a given market (like VoIP) and prioritize their particular product's data over that of a competitor. The bill describes a "broadband" provider as one that provides data transmission rates averaging 200Kbps, regardless of method of providing access. Such a bill might present interesting implications for the cellphone companies, which provide 2.5 and 3G data services to customers, and are often left out of the net neutrality debates.
HR 5252, by contrast, seeks to give the FCC Policy Statement 05-151 from August 2005 the force of law, but says little more. What should be noted is that a proposed amendment by Rep. Markey (D-MA), which offered a stronger net neutrality provision similar to that found in HR 5417, was rejected before the House approved the bill.
Since the start of the 110th Congress in 2007, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) have introduced a new bill to address net neutrality. The bill, formally known as S. 217, has been dubbed the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" [Warning: PDF]. It requires providers not to block or interfere with users on the basis of content, sources of content, or use of non-damaging devices. Regarding content priority, subsection (a)(4) requires a provider to "enable any content, application, or service" and that it be provided in a manner that is:
(A) "reasonable and nondiscriminatory",
(B) relayed at least as fast as content of the broadband provider or related affiliates, and
(C) the provider doesn't charge different rates for different types of content.
Subsection (D) requires that every broadband provider offer standalone service (i.e. "naked" DSL and cable internet), and prohibits any requirement to purchase cable, voice, or VoIP service in order to get internet access. Presidential contenders and Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hilary Clinton (D-NY) are also sponsors of the bill (we're oh so glad they found something they can agree on), so perhaps there will be added attention to the net neutrality debate in the coming months. And perhaps with a little luck we can cement the security of net neutrality before it's too late.
Footnotes
1 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984).
The authors of this article are law students, not licensed attorneys. The information in this article is not legal advice. Legal advice is dependent upon the specific circumstances of each situation. The law may vary from state to state, and the information contained in this article is not guaranteed to be up to date. Therefore, the information contained in this article cannot replace the advice of competent legal counsel licensed in your state.
Intro
The issue of net neutrality (i.e. internet or network neutrality) is essentially a battle over how much control internet providers should have in deciding whether to give preferences to different sites and online applications. The battle lines are drawn over whether ISPs should have the right to exact direct control over the content and data flowing across their networks. For example, should Verizon Online DSL charge Google extra money to ensure that YouTube videos will download faster than, say, Revver videos? Or should Verizon be able to decide that YouTube is taking up too many resources on its network and make it run slower, or block it entirely?
Network neutrality advocates say that the internet should treat all information more or less equally, and that favoring some content, sites, or applications over others would take control from the users and force them to patronize only that which is favored by the ISPs and network operators -- presumably only the internet businesses with the most money to spend on this new kind of carriage deal. Opponents of network neutrality argue that because service providers are in a competitive industry, they have plenty of incentives to provide the best service possible, and that the government should let market forces dictate the results of network regulation.
In 2005, the FCC raised eyebrows when it investigated a small broadband provider, Madison River Communications, that had blocked access to Vonage's VoIP application. The matter ended when the provider agreed to unblock Vonage and pay a fine (more on this case later). Some argue that the source of the FCC's power to regulate net neutrality is based on the Supreme Court's 1997 decision allowing the agency to enforce "must-carry" regulations, which required cable companies to include local channels in their lineup. However, the reason net neutrality is such a contestable topic is because courts have not yet directly ruled on the jurisdiction of the FCC to enforce it.
Much of this issue boils down to whether ISPs can be considered "common carriers", a special legal designation for businesses and agencies available to the public for transportation of persons, goods, or messages. Such companies have been saddled with extra legal duties, namely of care and equal treatment, since the railroad days of the 1800s. Since the first Communications Act in 1934, the telephone system has been considered a common carrier and therefore subject to regulation by the FCC. So far, however, authorities have been reluctant to take a heavy-handed approach to regulating the internet.
The FCC's stance
In 2005, the FCC issued Policy Statement 05-151 [Warning: PDF], which addresses net neutrality. Policy Statement 05-151 did two important things. First, it declared that the FCC has the jurisdiction to regulate telecommunications providers to ensure they operate their networks in a neutral manner. This is important because federal agencies can only regulate areas or issues that have been placed within their rulemaking power by the relevant enabling statute -- in the case of the FCC, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended in 1996, is that enabling statute. An agency's rule over an area can be overturned in court if it is deemed unauthorized by the enabling statute.
If, for example, the FCC started issuing gun control regulations, those regulations would be thrown out in court because the Communications Act does not give the FCC any gun-control powers. If, however, a regulation is within an agency's jurisdiction, courts will be very reluctant to overturn it. Thus, Policy Statement 05-151 is significant because it declares that the FCC believes that the law enables it to create regulations to enforce net neutrality. Courts often give "great weight" to an agency's determination that it has a particular rulemaking power. Although a court could conceivably hold that the FCC has exceeded its authority, the deference courts give to agencies in defining their jurisdictions makes it unlikely1. More importantly, this statement also signals the intent of the FCC to start mandating net neutrality.
Policy Statement 05-151 is also important in that it set forth the following four principals regarding network regulation:
- Consumers are entitled to access content of their choice.
- Consumers have a right to programs of their choice.
- Consumers should be able to connect legal devices of their choice to networks.
- Consumers have a right to select from competing networks, services, and content providers.
Pursuing policy statements
A policy statement (such as 05-151) is, unfortunately for those interested in preserving net neutrality, only a non-binding explanation of the FCC's position on a subject. Technically, a policy statement is not a binding rule because the agency hasn't completed the formal rulemaking process (which includes hearings, public comments, and so forth). But a policy statement does put companies on notice regarding how an agency such as the FCC interprets the law, and said agency intends to act on it.
The FCC has done more than issue non-binding policy statements, though. The net neutrality issue first entered the political consciousness in February 2005, when the FCC Enforcement Bureau began an investigation of Madison River Communications, a North Carolina ISP. Madison River had allegedly begun blocking ports to prevent the use of Vonage's VoIP service by its customers, probably to stifle competition of its local landline telephone business. The FCC sent a letter to Madison River officially opening an investigation into the practice, and within a month Madison River had signed a consent agreement, under which it agreed to cease blocking VoIP services and pay a $15,000 fine. In return, the FCC agreed to drop the action against Madison River.
What does this mean for net neutrality? Well, as a practical matter, it means that the FCC is willing to pursue net neutrality investigations. As a legal matter, it means very little. A consent agreement is the administrative version of an out-of-court settlement; we don't know what would have happened if the FCC and Madison River had gone through the whole adjudication process, nor do we know whether a court would accept the FCC's claims of jurisdiction on this issue. In other words, the law wasn't put to the test to see whether the FCC really does have control in maintaining net neutrality. What's interesting is that the FCC's investigation and letter came six months before the FCC issued Policy Statement 05-151. That means that the action was commenced without even an informal policy in place to back it up. However, the FCC seems to agree with the action in retrospect, since it responded by issuing a policy statement in favor of net neutrality regulations.
So it is safe to say that the FCC seems to be onboard with net neutrality. Though it hasn't issued any formal rules yet, its actions indicate that it will probably continue to enforce net neutrality in the future. Given that the FCC will likely be unfriendly to those opposed to net neutrality, the best way for opponents to win the fight is to pull the rug out from under the FCC by having net neutrality regulation removed from its jurisdiction. That means going to Congress to pass some new laws.
Congressional action & inaction
In 2006, the House debated two separate bills to address net neutrality. The first bill, H.R. 5417, was called the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act," and was never even brought up for a vote. The second bill, H.R. 5252, was called the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006." It passed the House by a vote 321-101, but never received a vote in the Senate. The two bills present a glimpse into the likely options that the 110th Congress will consider.
HR 5417 can be described as the stricter "neutrality" bill. It does not allow for the discrimination of data either by the source of content or the end devices employed by users. For instance, a broadband provider like Verizon could not favor YouTube over Revver. In terms of devices, it would not allow the ISP to discriminate what hardware (or software) is sending and receiving data, be it a TiVo or VoIP phone. The bill does, however, allow for prioritizing certain types of data (i.e. quality of service), provided that it does not discriminate amongst who is providing that data. Thus, if an ISP wanted to privilege VoIP or video data, used in applications where low-latency is critical, then they could freely prioritize those types of data to the end users' benefit. Because they are not allowed to discriminate based on the source of data, a broadband company could not enter a given market (like VoIP) and prioritize their particular product's data over that of a competitor. The bill describes a "broadband" provider as one that provides data transmission rates averaging 200Kbps, regardless of method of providing access. Such a bill might present interesting implications for the cellphone companies, which provide 2.5 and 3G data services to customers, and are often left out of the net neutrality debates.
HR 5252, by contrast, seeks to give the FCC Policy Statement 05-151 from August 2005 the force of law, but says little more. What should be noted is that a proposed amendment by Rep. Markey (D-MA), which offered a stronger net neutrality provision similar to that found in HR 5417, was rejected before the House approved the bill.
Since the start of the 110th Congress in 2007, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) have introduced a new bill to address net neutrality. The bill, formally known as S. 217, has been dubbed the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" [Warning: PDF]. It requires providers not to block or interfere with users on the basis of content, sources of content, or use of non-damaging devices. Regarding content priority, subsection (a)(4) requires a provider to "enable any content, application, or service" and that it be provided in a manner that is:
(A) "reasonable and nondiscriminatory",
(B) relayed at least as fast as content of the broadband provider or related affiliates, and
(C) the provider doesn't charge different rates for different types of content.
Subsection (D) requires that every broadband provider offer standalone service (i.e. "naked" DSL and cable internet), and prohibits any requirement to purchase cable, voice, or VoIP service in order to get internet access. Presidential contenders and Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hilary Clinton (D-NY) are also sponsors of the bill (we're oh so glad they found something they can agree on), so perhaps there will be added attention to the net neutrality debate in the coming months. And perhaps with a little luck we can cement the security of net neutrality before it's too late.
Footnotes
1 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984).
The authors of this article are law students, not licensed attorneys. The information in this article is not legal advice. Legal advice is dependent upon the specific circumstances of each situation. The law may vary from state to state, and the information contained in this article is not guaranteed to be up to date. Therefore, the information contained in this article cannot replace the advice of competent legal counsel licensed in your state.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Vince D @ Mar 29th 2007 2:41PM
"Net Neutrality" is a bad solution to a non-problem. The article stipulates that there is very little actual regulatory action, yet most providers are mostly neutral.
The fundamental question is; Who owns the internet? Meaning , who owns the fiber, coax, servers? The answer to this suggests the answer to the question - an owner of a piece of private property should be allowed to do whatever he or she wants with it. Cases where previous government-mediated monopolies hinder the fundamental fairness of this should be investigated and corrected, but the servers, switches, and the "pipes", as Senator Stevens so ineptly (but not inaptly) put it, belong to the owners, not the government, and not to Google.
ManekiNeko @ Mar 29th 2007 5:51PM
Hey, is that a sticker on your chest?
Hmm... Vend-A-Shill: Will argue against American freedom and for abusive corporations. Please insert coin.
Oh, that explains everything!
Seriously though, it was the government that built the internet infrastructure... they only loaned it to cable companies and telcos on the condition that it be improved with fiberoptic networks. That never happened. And when other people try to build those fiberoptic networks, Comcast and its cronies have the gall to sue for unfair competition (as if there was anything resembling competition in the cable industry).
So yeah, the usual "free-market solves EVERYTHING!" drivel spouted off by most Republicans just doesn't fly in this case. America is a country of freedom, and that freedom belongs to more than just billionaire media monopolists.
If common carrier laws need to be passed to preserve that freedom, so be it. AT+T has plenty of money as it is... it can find other ways to make more money than by imprisoning free expression and turning the internet into a desolate wasteland of bland, processed content.
JR
Vince D @ Mar 30th 2007 10:21AM
JR,
Way to make two nasty, reflexive, ad hominem attacks on me in one post. Accusing me of carrying water for Big Telco / Big Cable and the Republicrat / Demoblican party really addresses the point (NOT), which is who owns the stuff is the internet made of.
But here you are, opposed to two industries (Big Telco and Big Cable) monopolizing the internet. The monopoly power they have been given comes from government regs (federal regs on telco for over 100 years, state and local regs on cable). Yet your solution, and that of every party in the "Net Neutrality" debate is to issue MORE regulations. How does this make any sense?
The only answer that will work in the long run is complete, utter deregulation and privatization of all telco and all internet. Let ISPs restrict access to non-favored content providers, and new competitors will spring up nearly overnight to bleed the offending ISPs to death. And your irrelevant blather about the government creating the internet aside, the first massive investments in fiber were made by companies such as MCI that were able to break loose of the hammerlock the Feds gave the Bell System, and this, not your precious bureaucracy, was the major development that led to the internet as we know it today.
Notice, I did NOT accuse you of being a shill for, say, Google or Yahoo, in the same way you accused me of shilling for ComCrap or Big Brother Bell.
Bucky @ Mar 30th 2007 12:49PM
I agree with that statement 100%
http://www.bloggingwv.com
Rohit Kapur @ Mar 29th 2007 2:44PM
Hmmm... Very interesting read, Engadget. I'm really glad you guys go out and cover these issues too, and go beyond 'Engadget', as it is thought to be.
In my opinion (and this is just a lay opinion of a consumer and nothing more), the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" seems to be quite right. The consumers should have their choice of service, and what type of service they want without additional goodies being attached on for a price, and they should face no trouble accessing content of any type on the internet; the companies should be allowed to set up their services as best as they can, meaning that if someone can afford to offer large bandwidth and quick loading time for their content, they should be allowed to do so. In that sense, 'equality' is harmful, because it stunts growth. Providers should be allowed to offer as much as they can, as long as they don't dictate whether or not consumers can access content offered by others (i.e. what Madison River did).
Simply put, let the consumers have whatever they want, at the price you see fit, as long as you offer as much as you can without trying to impede your competitors.
Sounds good, don't it?
Michael Schmitt @ Mar 29th 2007 2:55PM
I don't understand why telecommunications companies won't let data traffic flow like they let voice communications flow. As of right now, I believe when I talk on the phone, using telecommunications companies' systems, my voice is digitized and sent as data over their systems; why can't they get it through their heads that ALL digital data (voice, music, movies, etc) should be able to be shuttled around on the networks with no more or less priority than other forms of communications are as of right now.
It is the "wide open frontier" right now, and like the interstate system that we have right now that helps us move large amounts of goods around the country, we need a good internet system to help us move large amounts of goods (content, services, etc.). Without the flow of goods, our economy may suffer.
Jim @ Mar 30th 2007 12:10AM
Michael wrote:
when I talk on the phone, using telecommunications companies' systems, my voice is digitized and sent as data over their systems; why can't they get it through their heads that ALL digital data (voice, music, movies, etc) should be able to be shuttled around on the networks with no more or less priority than other forms of communications are as of right now.
That's kind of the point of this, I thought. They (the companies, the legislators, etc.) do completely get that all digital data should be treated that way. They also get that they are required to do so by law with voice data but are not required (yet) for other data.
And when there's something not required to be on a level playing field, that's an opportunity to tweak and adjust and wring extra money out of things. And extra money is why "should" doesn't mean "will". They only *will* do it when they *have* to do it.
Twist @ Mar 29th 2007 3:02PM
Hmm lots of ISP's currently block incoming requests on port 80 so that their users can't run their own web servers and many are starting to block outgoing email ports as well in an effort to fight spam coming from their networks. Both of these practices sound like they could end up getting ISP's into trouble if there ever is a law passed. While I am all for less spam I do think that there has to be a better solution than blocking the ports.
I am all for having a net neutrality passes even though it currently isn't that big of an issue. In my opinion it would be much better to stop this kind of activity from starting now so that we don't have to fight to get it removed later.
Smilesaurus @ Mar 29th 2007 3:19PM
The internet hasn't even been publically around for a quarter century, so it's up to the people alive today to protect it from corporate rape, since what happens early on will really shape how we use the internet 50 or a 100 yrs down the road.
One way to do that is to keep checks on FCC officials who start turning into puppets.
I worry about this part though (it's towards the end of the article):
(A) "reasonable and nondiscriminatory"
Does that mean different content can be blocked if certain people (like the ISPs etc) see it as discriminatory? For example, they could either block Jimmy Carter websites because of anti-Jewish allegations, or they could block Michael Savage-like cites because of anti-Muslim allegations, or block Humanist sites because they seem anti-religion.
OR
Does it mean that sites that offer service on a discriminatory basis would be blocked (like free membership for anyone who's of a certain category, etc)?
ron @ Mar 29th 2007 4:14PM
@Smilesaurus -
"reasonable and non-discriminatory" means they have to offer the same terms (more or less) to any customers - they can't charge Google one price and Yahoo a significantly different one. It has nothing to do with blocking content.
Josh @ Mar 29th 2007 5:48PM
I worry about this part though (it's towards the end of the article):
(A) "reasonable and nondiscriminatory"
----
You read this wrong. It says that the content must be provided in a manner that is "reasonable and nondiscriminatory", not that the content itself must be that.
Smilesaurus @ Mar 29th 2007 3:25PM
To Twist:
"In my opinion it would be much better to stop this kind of activity from starting now so that we don't have to fight to get it removed later."
^^^^ What kind of activity are u referring to?
To Michael: "It is the "wide open frontier" right now, and like the interstate system that we have right now that helps us move large amounts of goods around the country, we need a good internet system to help us move large amounts of goods (content, services, etc.). Without the flow of goods, our economy may suffer.
^^^^ I agree.
Also, what about issues like air neutrality (radio etc)?
Internet censorship will be the death of free speech...
Controlled internet in the US could eventually mean even more political polarization because of subtly one-sided information (whatever suits the agendas of the different ISPs)
andy @ Mar 29th 2007 3:55PM
It's exactly like the radio and payolla. Companies and individuals alike should pay for bandwidth and/or amount of traffic depending on the service provider they sign up with. You shouldn't then pay ADDITIONAL money to get packet priority.
I think blocking ports to prevent people from using their connection any way they please is borderline. However, well intentioned moves (like trying to decrease/block spam) should be lauded.
Eric V @ Mar 29th 2007 4:07PM
Would net neutrality include companies other than telecommunication companies who still offer access to the internet?
For example you buy a device with service that is connected to a 3G network but the device lacks software which is capable of accessing all of the internet's content.
Would all broadband devices have to include fully capable web browsers?
Craig Newmark @ Mar 29th 2007 4:15PM
A related concern is that the telecoms have been repeatedly caught in deliberate disinformation on this subject. For example, they've created fake grassroots sites ("astroturf") which pretend to be done by ordinary people attacking neutrality. handsofftheinternet.com is one of them.
If the attackers of 'net neutrality aren't honest, what does that tell you?
Craig
J @ Mar 29th 2007 6:09PM
>AT+T has plenty of money as it is
Always an excellent argument. A nice slick slope that leads you right towards socialism. Cheers!
ManekiNeko @ Mar 29th 2007 7:35PM
You would prefer a plutocracy?
JR
Matt @ Mar 29th 2007 7:40PM
Net Neutrality is the biggest oxymoron ever. There is nothing neutral about government regulation.
Neutrality is letting consumers decide, not lawyers and bureaucrats. As long as there is competition, which we're only getting more of (Dial-Up, Cable, DSL, Satellite, 3G, Muni Wi-fi, Paid Wi-fi, WiMax, Power-line, Corporate, university, library, yada, yada), consumers will have the freedom to switch providers for the best service for their dollar.
Competition is the answer; not regulation.
ManekiNeko @ Mar 29th 2007 8:27PM
Well, then let's start seeing some! Most cable companies get exclusive monopolies which makes them the one and ONLY choice in a territory. If you live in Mount Pleasant, you get Charter... or nothing. If you live in Grand Rapids or Battle Creek, you get Comcast... or nothing.
The problem with the free marketeers is that competition is the last thing on their minds. They support mergers, which reduce customer choice and raise prices. They support monopolies like those the cable companies currently possess. Worst of all, they support deregulation, which further limits competition and puts the customer behind the eight ball.
You can't put blind trust in Laissez-faire capitalism, because it simply doesn't work. Left unchecked, corporations will find a way to abuse their considerable power. Do you think DuPont would have stopped producing ozone-depleting hydroflourocarbons, or the Rockefellers would have stopped abusing their railroad monopoly, or AT+T would have split themselves up in the early 1980's, if the government had just asked them nicely?
The answer is no. The government sometimes needs to step in to protect Americans from corporate greed... and this is one of those times. Net neutrality does far less damage to corporations than its absence would do to the citizens of the United States.
JR
Josh @ Mar 29th 2007 7:59PM
While net neutrality is to a degree over protective at the moment, i think it may actually prove important in the future. The last thing i want is for my ISP, who i already hate, to play around with what i am able to achieve with my internet connection. If crap like that started happening, the majority of the tech world would switch ISPs but unfortunately many people wouldn't realize what had been done and just unknowingly get slammed by their ISPs.
Vince D @ Mar 30th 2007 10:40AM
JR;
"Do you think DuPont would have stopped producing ozone-depleting hydroflourocarbons"
Uh, DuPont gamed the system so the ban occurred after their CFC patents expired, so that consumers would have to use THEIR PATENTED non-CFC refrigerants - yeah, the Feds really screwed DuPont there, HAHAHAHA.
"...or the Rockefellers would have stopped abusing their railroad monopoly,"
Um, the Rockefellers owned Standard Oil, and that was the "monopoly" they were accused of having. The railroads are a different, government-mediated monopoly.
"or AT+T would have split themselves up in the early 1980's, if the government had just asked them nicely?"
Uh, the government GAVE them their monopoly, and protected it for nearly 100 years, what planet have YOU been living on? And I made the point earlier that MCI and its customers (big businesses that were fed up with poor treatment and poor service by Bell Tel) and forced the government's hand on the breakup.
Your critique of laissez faire stinks on ice, and you really should abandon your feeble attempt at economic argument.
JL @ Apr 2nd 2007 3:00PM
ManekiNeko
Problem is that consumers are getting used to being dictated to by
the major corporations. As long as the government sides with/feels that corporate rights outweigh individual/consumer rights these threats to freedom of information will continue. That's what net neutrality boils down to for myself.
Where are Apple, Microsoft, Dell, HP and a host of other companies on this issue - this will affect them as much as the Telecomm companies. (I'm in southern new jersey and i think it sucks that for broadband all i have is either Comcast or nothing. Verizon is too cheap or whatever to make their digital links (DSL or FiOS) available to my area. It's not for a lack of customers either) (sorry for the rant there - lol)
Revrant2394 @ Mar 30th 2007 7:13AM
I'm always distressed seeing people stand AGAINST Net Neutrality, knowing full well how badly it would hurt them, while Comcast promoted "Ready Boost" it attempted to put monthly bandwidth caps on us, it just goes to show how willing these companies are to screw the consumer and lie about it.
Now if this was a truly competitive sphere, I'd be less worried, but it just isn't, the only thing that has prevented the Internet from becoming the Bell monopoly of old is Net Neutrality, even now there are instances where Net Neutrality is ignored and the incident must be investigated, what would happen if it was watered down and neutered?
The thing that makes me boil most is it's becoming a partisan issue, Republicans have no reason to side so willingly against it, they, much like everyone else who uses the internet, should side with the idea of Net Neutrality. I guess it just lends more to the idea of politicians being corrupt, and money changing hands.
I have personally spoken to all but one of my Michigan representatives on this issue, that one refused to even speak to me(Ironically he appeared on The Colbert Report), you should all do the same in your respective states and insure the people representing you know about the issue at hand.
Nakona @ Apr 1st 2007 8:33AM
Revrant -
Let's use the test on you.
You say you sypport Network Neutrality. OK...
What's the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web?
Revrant2394 @ Mar 30th 2007 11:51AM
Sorry I didn't reply earlier, took a Nap.
The World Wide Web, that's HTML and web pages, you know, stuff you see in IE/Firefox, and the Internet is actual physical networks linked together through the world, which provides the connection to use the World Wide Web. I'd bet not many representatives know the difference though, I should have made that a point, they are old.
Nakona @ Mar 30th 2007 7:46AM
As a side note, it distresses ME to see it being cast as a Democrat vs Republican issue.
This has nothing to do with politics, and attempting to gain support for ANY position by saying; "Look! That is against this idea, so it MUST be a good idea!" is just plain dishonest and ignorant.
David CW @ Mar 30th 2007 9:37AM
Surely it's strange that the people who say they advocate freedom are in fact advocating regulation - and detailed regulation at that. ISPs should be free to strike whatever deals they like, and in turn their customers should be free to leave them.
Nakona @ Mar 30th 2007 1:17PM
Revrant -
Yes, that's close enough for the purpose of coversation. The WWW is content and the Internet is Infrastructure.
Now, are you familiar with BGP4?
Failing that, do you have any familiarity with how the internet is constructed physically or how packets are routed?
Just so you understand, I'm not asking you these questions to amuse myself. I am trying to open a dialog, but I need to understand where you are in terms of technical knowledge. Otherwise I could easily spew a bunch of techno-babble that wouldn't remotely make sense to you.
Revrant2394 @ Mar 30th 2007 1:29PM
Well after a quick visit to Wikipedia, I got that feeling, you know, when you're walking outside at dark worrying about your own problems, and you look up into space and go - "Oh."
So no, I didn't really know any of what I read, and I can't say I know a whole lot more now.
nresare @ Mar 30th 2007 1:11PM
Here’s an interesting example of how the principles of Net Neutrality can be linked back to the Internet’s older brother, the telecom network. A few weeks ago, AT&T began blocking calls to services like FreeConferenceCall.com. AT&T did this without filing a direct lawsuit, without petitioning the FCC and without even contacting Free Conferencing Corp, the parent company. These types of free services are completely legal and AT&T is using self-help and cowboy justice to financially bully competing services out of business. This is the world of Carrier Neutrality. You can learn more at blog.freeconferencecall.com.
Nakona @ Mar 31st 2007 6:19PM
Revrant -
Essentially, I have made the claim that anyone who actually understands the way the internet works would know that "Network Neutrality" is a useless idea designed to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
The only way to substantiate that claim is to explain to you how The Internet functions, such that you can see for yourself how laughable the whole thing is.
I've decided that I want to try to do this in "chunks", instead of writing something to rival 'War & Peace', then expecting you to actually read through that nonsense without falling asleep.
Now...
Yesterday, I asked you what you knew about BGP4. The reason I asked that is because Border Gateway Protocol version #4 is what is currently used as the Routing Protocol for the internet.
A few decades ago when DARPA conceived what would actually become what we call "The Internet", they were trying to create a robust, self-healing communications network; that would be able to both function and to a certain extent repair itself; all without human intervention.
To understand how this works, it's best to begin with a simple ethernet network.
You have, say... Four computers; and they are all plugged into a Hub. Computer #1 wants to send information to computer #3. Unfortunately, #2 wants to talk to #4 at the same time.
#1 & #2 both send their packets out onto the media (The Cable) and the packets collide.
(These are not actually packets... Packets are a Layer-3 property, but the term will do for this conversation.)
So, what do you do about the collision? Well... you could try to detect collisions, then have your computer back of for a fraction of a second before retransmitting. Then of course, you hope that the other guy backed off for a different amount of time so you can get your message through. You could also try to avoid collisions by sort of, well... honking your horn. You send a tiny bit of data out to let everyone else know you are about to send a bunch more. You might still have a collision, but at least there wont be as much data involved.
This is still not a great setup, so you get yourself a SWITCH, instead of a HUB.
If you have a Hub with 8 ports and you send a transmission INTO the Hub, it comes back out again on all 7 other ports.
If you have a Switch, the switch maintains a table of what are called MAC addresses (I'll explain in a moment) and it knows which computer is attached to which port. So, same scenario as before; but now the data leaves the Switch on only ONE port... the RIGHT one.
MAC addresses are also known as Hardware address. EVERY single network capable device built has a unique MAC address. In small networks, you don't even need IP addresses... you could actually do all your switching with just MAC addresses. Unfortuately, it doesn't scale well. That's why we us IP addresses. (Like 192.168.0.5, which is actually a "private" IP address... a whole 'nother subject.)
Anyway, switches work fine as long as you're in control of the entire network. An Individual Network, under the administrative control of one person or organization is called an "Autonomous System" or; "AS".
In my network, I have something like 4,000 some-odd switches (Mostly cisco 2900 series) and I don't know.... maybe 30,000 hosts? All this spread over around 150+ sites across a Metropolitan area. Which we do have route processors in a Cisco 8510 at each site (To cope with the fiber optic gig links that attach us to our ISPs), our network is actuall "Switched".
I'll break there to make sure you're still with me and to let you ask questions if you have any.
BTW, if at any time you decide you really don't care, just tell me. I'm not going to force feed you this stuff. Or, if you want to take this discussi9on off of this board; let me know that as well.
Revrant2394 @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:21AM
That's, a lot to chew on, but I fail to see what it has to do with Net Neutrality, or I'm missing something, as I understand it the goal of Net Neutrality is really to keep the corporations(Access providers) out of the process, and make sure they stay just access providers.
gopi @ Mar 30th 2007 7:05PM
Nakona writes,
"As a Network Engineer I have to tell you..."
As a chief information officer and computer scientist, and somebody who's been on the 'net since the time when when most people didn't know what an e-mail was, I'm somewhat confused by your assertion that network engineering knowledge is required to debate the political, economic, and philosophical issues of network neutrality.
Is your position going to be that a non-neutral network is a technical impossibility? If so, then, instead of arrogantly claiming that other people aren't qualified enough to discuss the topic, why don't you just get straight to the point and consider your knowledge to be something you use to educate people, instead of something to subdue them with? Somebody might need knowledge of BGP to decide whether you were right or wrong, but I'm certain they could understand your conclusions without that knowledge.
The fact of the matter is, high level people at telcos have stated they want to end net neutrality:
"William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc."
Put up or shut up. Explain how knowledge of the technical mechanisms that would be used by telcos or other ISPs actually matters. Feel free to explain in as much technical detail as you wish. Understand, though, that I have worked on router designs that, I believe, would be quite useful for a discriminatory Internet.
Nakona @ Mar 31st 2007 8:34AM
Gopi-
So you would assert that you can rationally discuss the socio-political implications of something that you don't actually understand in the first place?
Interesting.
Note to Rev:
It's Saturday morning as I write this and I have to be someplace shortly. I wanted to take some time to write you a GOOD response, and not "half-@$$" it; so I'll get back to you this afternoon when I return.
christopherdale @ Mar 31st 2007 8:11AM
FYI, the article improperly uses "principals" when it means "principles".
gopi @ Mar 31st 2007 12:55PM
@Nakona:
"So you would assert that you can rationally discuss the socio-political implications of something that you don't actually understand in the first place?
Interesting."
How much do you know about optical lithography? What about electromagnetism? Can you calculate the impedance of a transmission line? Ever written a kernel? Do you know how an MMU works? What about optics? Cryptography? Do you know how RSA actually works? Would you understand if I showed you a phase diagram for a lead-free solder? What about tin whiskers? Do you know enough metallurgy to analyze tin whisker problems in the systems you design? Do you know how a transistor works at the electron level? Do you know what N and P type doped semiconductors actually are?
All of those things are technical details of the systems you work on, and I'm guessing that you only truly understand a small percentage - because, honestly, you don't need to worry about the lithography used or the semantics of the semaphores used for IPC. You shouldn't have to worry about that.
The point I am making is that the underlying technical knowledge used to make the systems you use is something that you've only barely scratched the surface of. This article is a discussion of the legal, political, sociological and business implications of a certain traffic shaping policy. The business development people at an ISP will direct the people under them to implement a policy giving preferential treatment to traffic to people who pay them more. The technological means to accomplish this end are irrelevant.
I don't need to understand your router configuration to have an understanding of how an end-user will perceive the performance difference. More importantly, a deep understanding of BGP4 is utterly useless in understanding the impact of this on the competitive market.
I'm not saying that you can rationally discuss something you don't understand. I'm saying that BGP4 is not what we're talking about here, so an understanding of it is irrelevant.
Since turnabout is fair play...
The guy whose office is next to mine has testified before Congress on FCC licensing issues. I've been involved in FCC testing. I've helped plan licensing strategy. My company has lobbied Congress to auction the spectrum we bought instead of merely giving it away to one competitor. My book shelf has about 6 linear feet of legal documents, FCC rulings, and similar documents. I think you'll find that my knowledge of the _actual_ topic at hand is far greater than yours.
Do you have any marketing experience? Sociology? Econometrics? Business? Those are the fields relevant to net neutrality.
Net neutrality is not a technical issue.
I eagerly await an explanation of why I need to understand routing technology before I can speak rationally on 'net neutrality.
Nakona @ Mar 31st 2007 5:38PM
Gopi -
"I eagerly await an
explanation of why I
need to understand
routing technology
before I can speak
rationally on
'net neutrality."
No, you don't. What you eagerly await is another opportunity to beat your chest & yell.
"This article is a discussion of the legal, political, sociological and business implications of a certain traffic shaping policy."
You apparently feel that you are capable of having a rational and intelligent discussion on the **...legal, political, sociological and business implications of a certain traffic shaping policy...**
without actually understanding how the "Traffic Shaping" that you mentioned works in the first place.
It is precisely because of people who are eager to pontificate upon things that they don't understand that we end up with silliness like this 'Network Neutrality" issue in the first place.
The very fact that you seem to be genuinely offended by the notion that someone might actually expect you to KNOW something about a subject before you hold forth on it is prima facie evidence that your arguments are based on emotion, not facts.
Now if you'll excuse me, I promised someone else that I would get back to them. Trying to translate complex technical issues into laymans terms is difficult and time consuming; so I don't wish to waste any further time arguing with an angry man who appears to believe that actual knowledge is irrelevant.
You may of course feel free to continue yelling at me.
gopi @ Mar 31st 2007 6:15PM
@Nakona:
"...waste any further time arguing with an angry man who appears to believe that actual knowledge is irrelevant."
Strawman. I explained why _your_ knowledge was irrelevant, and which knowledge I believed _was_ relevant.
"You apparently feel that you are capable of having a rational and intelligent discussion on the **...legal, political, sociological and business implications of a certain traffic shaping policy...**
without actually understanding how the "Traffic Shaping" that you mentioned works in the first place."
To correct that statement slightly, I think that it's possible to have a rational and intelligent discussion on the topic without knowing how to implement the policy, yes.
Perhaps you're assuming for some reason that I don't understand routing and traffic shaping. I've worked on designing actual, real routers in the past. The device in question could do quite deep packet analysis and traffic shaping with a throughput of 80Gbps.
"The very fact that you seem to be genuinely offended by the notion that someone might actually expect you to KNOW something about a subject before you hold forth on it is prima facie evidence that your arguments are based on emotion, not facts."
I am offended when somebody asserts that, if I don't possess the knowledge _they_ believe to be relevant, I must be an idiot. You have yet to provide even the slightest reason why the _implementation_details_ of a routing policy are relevant to an understanding of its impact in the marketplace.
You also seem to casually ignore the detailed, topic-specific knowledge that I said I had. In terms of congress, FCC, lobbying, and other regulatory issues, I am quite experienced. But you apparently feel that only _your_ knowledge is relevant.
I do wish you the best of luck in explaining traffic shaping in layman's terms. I've done it before, but I really find it a lot easier interactively and with a white board.
"You may of course feel free to continue yelling at me."
And you may, of course, feel free to continue complaining about the tone of my argument and mis-representing the content of it. If you have an argument against enforced 'net neutrality that is not based on Libertarian principles of zero government influence in the private sector, I would genuinely like to hear it. I haven't heard one yet.
gopi @ Mar 31st 2007 11:15PM
@Nakona:
"Essentially, I have made the claim that anyone who actually understands the way the internet works would know that "Network Neutrality" is a useless idea designed to fix a problem that doesn't exist."
One, or both, of us seem to be very confused here. I'd like to understand your claim, so I would appreciate it if you could humor me.
It is generally accepted that network neutrality is the status quo. The discussion is about enforcing the status quo, and preventing the telcos from doing what they've said they want to do - provide higher QoS to content providers who pay them money.
Obviously, the problem that forced network neutrality is supposed to solve doesn't exist right now...
Are you claiming:
1. The telcos' proposition of higher QoS to paying content providers is not going to actually work in some sense - either technically infeasible, or consumers won't notice or care?
2. The current Internet topology is such that we don't have network neutrality on the 'net now?
3. The proposals for network neutrality are technically broken and won't do what their advocates want them to do?
...or something else entirely?
Nakona @ Apr 1st 2007 8:33AM
As a Network Engineer I have to tell you...
The whole "Network Neutrality" issue is the most ridiculous example of classic "Chicken Little" thinking that I have seen in a long time.
Here's a test, when you are listening to someone advocate in favor of "Network Neutrality": Ask the person doing the advocating to explain to you the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web.
If you get a blank look that indicates that they never even considered that there WAS a difference, let alone what that difference is; then you can stop listening right then; because that person doesn't have the technical knowledge to HAVE the discussion.
Nakona @ Apr 1st 2007 8:35AM
Why were my comments from the prior page reprinted on this one?
Nakona @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:11PM
Rev -
That's because I haven't gotten there yet.
I wanted to stop to make sure you were still with me on the technical mumbo-jumbo.
Nakona @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:21PM
Rev -
Just as an example:
"...as I understand it the goal of Net Neutrality is really to keep the corporations(Access providers) out of the process, and make sure they stay just access providers...."
That statement, although seemingly logical; is completely meaningless.
Actually, I have to correct myself...
It's WORSE than meaningless; because it's so flawed that it's actually misleading.
As I said, if you still want to know what I'm talking about, I can give you Part Two. I just don't see any use in so overloading you with information in any one post that you tune out and don't actually get any UNDERSTANDING out of it.
It's up to you...