| Network Neutrality |
Article Index for Network |
Website Links For Network |
Information AboutNetwork Neutrality |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT NETWORK NEUTRALITY | |
| internet access | |
| computer law | |
|
OTHER IMPORTANT TERMS Non-discrimination means that at trafffic over the network (typically or exclusively digital packets or bits) are treated the same by the network, including the traffic originating with the network operator. This principle of 'bit parity' means that all bits are treated as 'just bits', and no bit traffic is prioritized over other bits, and none is hampered or disabled. Interconnection means that network operators have both a duty of interconnection and a right of interconnection to any other network operator. Networks must be constructed so that there are a reasonable number of accessible interconnnect points; that traffic is carried to and from rival networks at reasonable rates; and that the network is built with sufficient excess capacity to accomodate the reasonably foreseeable traffic that may be presented at the head-ends or peering points. Without a right of interconnection, there is no network. Access means that any end user can connect to any other end-user. End users may be people, but the term could also mean devices (modems, routers, switches) or even other networks. Access means that a piece of content, say, an email message, has a right to enter the network, and if it properly addressed, be received by the other end user, even if said user is on another network. In other words, traffic can begin at any point on the network and be delivered to any other point. BASIC THEORY Network Neutrality is closely related to the End To End Principle . Under this principle, a Dumb Network merely connects devices, and is insensitive to the needs of applications running on those devices. Contrast this with an Intelligent Network , for example an analog network, that distinguishes between the types of data carried on the network and treats each one differently due to the necessary differances between data formats. Underlying the theory of the benefits of network neutrality is a belief that a neutral network promotes innovation ( Schumpterian ), or evolutionary innovation of Information Technology . In order to promote innovation, network service providers such as telephone and cable internet companies should not be permitted to dictate how those networks are used (i.e., not permitted to ban certain types of programs, to ban certain types of devices connecting to the network, or to favor carriage of traffic to certain web sites over others). Network neutrality arguments have antecedents in other concepts in communications law, such as Common Carrier regulation and the "Computer Inquiries" approach. The contemporary use of the phrase "network neutrality" began in the early 1990s , and was first popularized by the European Union Information Society Bangemann Report, February 1993. The Bangemann Report recommended that network regualtion require interconnection and interoperability. This was later expanded in the EU Convergence Green Paper into the concept of technological neutrality, which refers to the network architecture as well as a parallel regulatory regime. As originally proposed and understood, network neutrality describes a regime of very light regulation guided by simple and readily understandable operating principles. It is intended, and has been criticized, as a retreat from the sector-specific and highly intrusive regulation preferred by the existing telecommunication carriers. The neutrality of the Internet is a matter of historical fact. Although there are many fine histories of Internet, Prof. Manuell Castells put the architecture of the Internet into historical and social context in his book, The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society (2001) Prof. Lawrence Lessig tried to explain his ideas about network neutrality in Code and other laws of Cyberspace (1999), but the idea was really developed in his writing for the first time 'the future of Ideas' (2001). Some of the arguments associated with network neutrality came into prominence in mid 2002 , pushed by the " High Tech Broadband Coalition ", a group comprising developers for Amazon.com , Google , and Microsoft . However, the fuller concept of "Network neutrality" was developed mainly by legal academics, most prominently law professors Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell , the first government official to endorse Network Neutrality. It is worth noting, however, that the ideas underlying Network Neutrality have a long pedigree in telecommunications regulation. Proposals for network neutrality laws are generally opposed by the Cable Television and telephone industries and some Conservative and Libertarian scholars including Christopher Yoo and Adam Thierer . Opponents argue that (1) network neutrality "principles" are likely to become the basis for more intrusive regulation of the internet, and (2) imposing such regulation will chill investment in competitive networks (e.g., wireless broadband) and deny network providers the ability to differentiate their services. These views contrast with the historical development of network neutrality, which involves a retreat from intrusive regulation, and expanded investment in network construction, consumer and business subscriptions, and the technology sector which requires an open and neutral platform for its business model. HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF CONGRESSIONAL BILL In the late 1990s and early 2000s, consumers began to attach new devices to their internet connections, and use internet services that were not in existence in the mid-1990s. The reaction of many broadband operators was to impose various contractual limits on the activities of their subscribers. In the best known examples, , as a cable operator, warned customers that using a Wi-Fi service for home-networking constituted "theft of service" and a federal crime. {Link without Title} Comcast blocked ports of VPNs, forcing the state of Washington, for example, to contract with telecommunications providers to be sure its employees had access to unimpeded broadband for telecommuting applications. These early instances of "broadband discrimination" prompted both academic and government responses. FCC Chairman Michael Powell in 2004 announced a new set of non-discrimination principles, which he called the principles of "Network Freedom". Powell stated that consumers must have the following four freedoms: # Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; # Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; # Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and # Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. On August 5 , 2005 , the FCC adopted a policy statement stating its adherence to these principles. Under pressure from the FCC and consumer groups, the broadband operators generally relaxed their most glaring insults to the network. In early 2005, in the ''Madison River'' case, the FCC for the first time showed a willingness to enforce its network neutrality principles. The FCC imposed fines on a local telephone carrier that was blocking Voice Over IP service. As Michael Powell stated, "The industry must adhere to certain consumer protection norms if the Internet is to remain an open platform for innovation." That case however, is no longer a precedent, as the laws that it followed no longer apply. Congress By late 2005, network neutrality provisions were included in several Congress ional draft bills, as a part of ongoing proposals to reform the Telecommunications Act Of 1996 . They would generally require internet providers to allow consumers access to any application, content, or service. However, important exceptions allow providers to discriminate for security purposes, or to offer specialized services like "broadband video" service. On March 30, 2006 press release Rep Fred Upton (Michigan) chaired a subcommittee hearing for a mark up of the ''Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Efficiency Act of 2006'' scheduled for the week of April 4th. In April 2006 a large coalition of bi-partisan Blogs and independent groups created Save The Internet , a fund-raising and political-action venue for endorsing the concepts of network neutrality. Within a week of its establishment, over 250 thousand signatures were delivered to Congress in favor of enshrining net neutrality as law. ECONOMICS OF NETWORK NEUTRALITY A main argument in favor of network neutrality is that a discriminatory network distorts markets that depend on the network, and ultimately may slow national economic growth. For example, if a network favors search engine A over search engine B, A may become dominant even though B's technology is better. Similarly, if the network favors a usage of the network popular at a given time (say, Gopher , enormously popular in the early 1990s) that may slow the competitive arrival of a new usage (like the World Wide Web ). In other words, a discriminatory network may "freeze" innovation (particularly application innovation) based on today's dominant applications. The link to national economic growth is as follows: many economists believe innovation is a major catalyst of economic growth, meaning that if a discriminatory network leads to less innovation, a country will grow more slowly. The arguments against network neutrality as a principle take three forms. The first and most common suggests that discrimination may be necessary to encourage investment in the networks of the future. If a broadband carrier is, for example, allowed to charge more for its own email service and block, say, Gmail, it has more money to build more advanced networks. It may also be able to offer a lower-priced product. One response to this argument concedes that discrimination result in greater profit for broadband carriers -- but asks whether the costs in terms of application innovation are worth it. In the example, the operator is exploiting a bottleneck in the network to extend its monoploy from the network service to another sector entirely, in this case messaging applications. It also asks whether allowing discrimination is the best way to encourage network deployments. In other words, there may be less distortionary ways to encourage carriers to build out their network, such as using the tax code, or government funding. A second argument against network neutrality relies on the economics of congestion. A neutral network is like a public good, leading to Collective Action or Tragedy Of The Commons -like problems. Hence a provider may need to discriminate as between users or usage to ensure maximum network performance. For example, if filesharing programs use up too much bandwidth, this argument suggests, a network operator should be allowed to block it. The typical answer to this argument goes as follows. There may be more and less distortionary ways of managing bandwidth -- and blocking or disfavoring certain applications is more distortionary. A more neutral way of managing bandwidth is to manage bandwidth at the consumer side - i.e., to limit the users to, say, x gigabytes per month after which their transfer rate is reduced, instead of banning peer-to-peer applications (systems of this type have been employed in other countries, e.g. Australia). However, service providers in the U.S. have resisted these arguments, suggesting that they do not want to charge their users for using higher bandwidth, either because this might not be technically feasible (unlikely) or because it would be a major pricing change which might not be matched by competitors or accepted by the marketplace. Instead, service providers have been proposing to charge content providers to offset the higher bandwidth charges of the end users. The third argument is deregulatory. It says, network neutrality is a fine idea but will require government intervention, and intervention will invariably and inevitably lead to unintended consequences. This argument leads to a larger debate over whether government can ever act in useful ways, which is difficult to summarize. However, in response, some advocates of network neutrality have argued that FCC action alone is sufficient. Others argue that legislation will simply replicate common-carriage principles already long in place for many communications networks. This argument can also be opposed on these grounds: Most high speed network providers are cable or telephone companies who are granted local monopolies by the government. Government granted monopolies must be regulated because if the monopolies act improperly market forces don't exist to correct the behavior. Evidence for this can be found in the self-same telephone monopolies work to eliminate competitors from reselling access to their networks -- networks paid for with public funds . Some trends affecting the debate are:
VARIATIONS Network Neutrality proposals can take many forms. While all share some features, some of the specific proposals are: # Most Favored Nation -- operators must offer to all companies transit on equal terms, and cannot discriminate as between them; # Radical Bit Anti-Discrimination -- operators must pass all packets blindly, and never make any decisions based on information specific to any packet; # Enough and as Good -- if operators prioritize bandwidth, they must leave enough and as good bandwidth to permit non-prioritized services to reach consumers; # Tiering only -- Operators may discriminate as between their customers, but must offer the same services to content, application,and service providers; # Police what you own -- Operators may exercise discrimination with respect to entirely private networks, but not inter-networks. NEUTRALITY AS LAW Net neutrality has been instantiated into law in many countries, including the United Kingdom , South Korea , and Japan . In the United States , there are no laws that instantiate net neutrality as a Telecommunications Standard . Many advocates, however, have spoken loudly on its behalf. This, combined with worries over Favoritism by telecoms, prompted Congress to begin hearings on the subject. On February 7, 2006, Congress called upon prominent members of the technology industry to testify on behalf of the standard, including Vinton Cerf , the inventor of TCP/IP , and current Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist at Google . In his testimony, he said, "allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success." ADVOCATES AND OPPONENTS Net neutrality was advocated early on by scholars like Lawrence Lessig , Tim Wu , Susan Crawford and others. Most of the major internet application companies, the so-called "Group of Six," are also advocates including IAC/InterActiveCorp , Amazon , and especially Google . Microsoft has also taken a stance in support of Net Neutrality {Link without Title} . Non-profits in support include Consumer Federation of America, Public Knowledge, the Media Access Project, and others. Some U.S. technology trade associations, including TechNet, have remained neutral on the issue because their varied membership includes companies, such as Cisco, that have a business interest in increased Internet discrimination. Opposition has come primarily from the two main broadband providers, the Bell companies and major cable companies. However, it is worth noting that the cable operators, like Comcast have taken a somewhat mixed position -- they have repeatedly affirmed that they consider neutral networks desirable, but think regulation is a mistake. The Bells, on the other hand, have actively pushed for non-neutral, tiered networks. Some non-profits, including the conservative Progress And Freedom Foundation, are also opposed. The debate is complicated by the long history in Washington of well-meaning regulation being captured by lawyers and lobbyists and used to block competition and innovation. In this light, legislating net neutrality could create new opportunities for corporations to 'game' the system for their own advantage or to disadvantage competitors. The experience of the 1996 Telecommunications Act suggests that a likely outcome of net neutrality legislation could be to create legal grounds for content providers to use lawsuits to set prices or block competition. RELEVANCE OF MUNICIPAL WIRELESS AND OTHER "THIRD PIPES" Much of the push for network neutrality rules comes from the lack of competition in broadband services. For that reason, Municipal Wireless and other wireless service providers are highly relevant to the debate. If successful, such services would provide a third type of broadband access with the potential to change the competitive landscape. For similar reasons, the feasibility of Broadband Over Powerline Services is also important to the network neutrality issue. However, as of the Spring of 2006, any deployments beyond cable and bell service created little new competition. COMPARISON WITH TRANSPORTATION The arguments of network neutrality mirror those in transportation regarding free and Toll Road s. Toll roads are in principle able to provide a higher level of service in exchange for a higher cost. In particular, High-occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes allow users to pay a premium to achieve a higher speed, and have been criticized as being inequitable for doing so. EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|