Net Neutrality

Senators Dorgan (North Dakota) and Snowe (Maine) had an editorial in today’s local paper concerning net neutrality (GF Herald – you may have to complete a free registration). I assume this editorial ran in many other papers as well. If I remember the details correctly, these Senators offered an amendment to assure net neutrality that was rejected. Net Neutrality basically concerns the issue of whether the company that “owns the pipe” has a right to control what content moves through that pipe. (Note – I use the term “pipe” here so I can cross reference my comments with the comments offered by Senator Stevens.). Others see this issue a little differently. The position of the providers has been presented based on the right of such companies to make a profit because these companies provide access (see comment taken from the editorial):

““They don’t have any fiber out there. They don’t have any wires. They don’t have anything. . . . They use my lines for free – and that’s bull. For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!”, the CEO of one the nation’s biggest network operators told Business Week magazine in November.”

Please consider this position carefully. I am guessing as an Internet user you realize you do not have free access to the Internet or if you do such access is paid for by the school or library providing you access. If you have home access, you may also realize that operating a server will require that you pay a fee above what you are presently paying to download information and using low volume upload services such as email. If you doubt this, try activating a server from home and you will likely immediately discover (at least I have from performing the test) that your service provider will expect a higher payment to allow such an activity. The same is true of Yahoo and Google (contrary to the implication of the statement I have quoted) and on a scale that is based on bandwidth. These companies do not pay for access based on the money they make, but on the bandwidth they use. It is a falsehood to claim there is no cost to Google to offer their services and make the money they make (on ads).

The net neutrality “issue” is really about the opportunity to control what content moves through Internet pathways. For companies offering multiple services (e.g., cable movies, voice communication), net neutrality reacts to the concern that providers will use the opportunity to control what content moves through the fiber they control to prevent users from accessing Internet services (e.g., online video, VOIP) that conflict with other money making opportunities of the provider. It is obviously in the interest of a phone company to block or slow VOIP services across a DSL line. This has nothing to do with making money when Google or Yahoo makes money.

The worst problems with the present situation will occur in locations where options are not available (I assume Maine and North Dakota would make good examples). If I live in North Dakota and have access to a cable system, I may be able to use VOIP, but I might find video downloads (perhaps distance education content) may move so slowly or not at all. It will not be that my provider objects to my learning online – but rather that the provider may confuse educational video with entertainment video.

Providers certainly have a right to make money for the service they provide. However, the service they provide is access to content/services. This is not the same as access to content/services as long as such content/services do not represent competition for other business ventures of the provider.