Tag: net neutrality

I wish my ed tech colleagues would expand their scope of awareness. Attempts to determine the 10 most useful tools for teachers or which of 10 spelling apps is the best needs to be expanded to include an awareness of Internet and political issues. The opportunity to engage students at school and at home will depend on cost effective access. First it was the legal decision exempting Verizon from net neutrality and now the proposed merger of Comcast and Time Warner again with net neutrality implications.

Because we cannot rely on competition to identify which company is most responsive to users (how many options do you have for decent Internet access), this is one of those situations in which we must depend on government oversight to guard against monopolistic practices.

Sen. Franken is one voice raising concerns with the FCC over Internet issues. I sent $4 to Sen. Franken last year when he was addressing a net neutrality issue. I now continue to receive requests for money. I am not from MN and the notion that issues are decided based on the amount of money various representatives can generate is disturbing. I know this is a bit naive. Om Malik argues that these issues are being determined by the money available from lobbyists. A very disturbing situation and exactly the problem Lawrence Lessig describes in his book – Republic Lost

TWiT-TV discussion of Comcast/Time Warner merger

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals just ruled that the FCC’s position on net neutrality sometimes also called the open Internet was not warranted. Net neutrality concerns a service provider’s authority to control the rate at which specific content can be sent through the system they provide users. They can prioritize some content over others. I continue to search for a way to explain what this is like and am always in danger of misrepresenting what is actually the case. As an analogy, I think it is fair to contrast the present situation with a toll road. With an open system, the price charged for a car or truck is set. If the new rules could be applied to the Internet, a toll road going through Detroit might allow American made cars to drive at 70 while limiting foreign cars to 45. Or, perhaps, there would be 10 toll booths for American made cars and 1 for foreign cars. The idea is that the self interests of the provider could come into play in influencing business opportunities that would likely be considered going beyond providing a service and making a profit on that service.

Positions on situations such as this are often spun in different ways. The providers wanting greater control point to what is argued as a misuse of the present system. For example, the proportion of Internet traffic that now is taken up by companies such as NetFlix has been used as an example. The providers argue they do not benefit in trying to keep up with the demand that is generating profits for a small number of content providers. A similar argument is made claiming that a substantial proportion of bandwidth is used by services that provide a conduit to what is often stolen content (music, video).

I am not certain I understand the first argument. I know that to connect a server to even an individual a provider expects a higher monthly fee. The content provider also pays a differential fee depending on the amount of content served. Part of the issue seems to be the concern that the provider could prioritize certain providers over others and who would determine when this was appropriate? For example, Internet services come to use from two likely categories of providers – phone companies (DSL) and cable television companies (cable). These two categories of providers have several income streams – there is the Internet access and there is either typical phone services (telephone calls, perhaps SMS) or content (television programming, pay per view content). There are potential conflicts of interest here – the phone company may see VOIP as a competitor (facetime, Skype) and the cable company may see free or commercial video (e.g., NetFlix) as a competitor.

There are other issues. The “right” of a company to offer services as it sees fit is often justified arguing that customers not finding the service acceptable can simply take their business elsewhere. However, many of us have only one option (and often not a good one) for a connection to the Internet. This has been a long standing issue with phone and cable services and regulatory mechanisms have been put in place over the years to deal with such monopolistic situations. In fact, to return to my original analogy, the government at some point created the interstate highway system because access to ways to move physical goods was considered a right for all citizens.

Anyway, how Internet access is made available is a challenging and politicized issue. The issue was first raised in the 2007 – 2008 time frame and I wrote about it at that time. My concern was not as a user, but as an advocate for students. I assume that government subsidies such as the e-rate will support school use, but the increasing reliance on online resources out of school will contribute to the to existing problem of income-based inequities. I am also concerned as an educational content provider. I personally subsidize the resources I provide, but I am concerned my server costs will increase. Sometimes I am concerned that my perspective is self serving. I am pleased when I see a similar position taken by others.

One of the books I finished over break was Tim Wu’s “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires“. I would describe this as an historical analysis with a message. By the way, Wu coined the phrase (net neutrality) – the origin was new to me, but I have been interested in the issue for some time.

Wu argues information technologies seem to follow a cycle – they begin with the promise of encouraging wide participation and transformation but morph toward monopoly and limited options. He contends this was true of publishing, radio, and television and perhaps now the Internet. I found the analysis and stories fascinating.

It does seem like the progression Wu describes is underway. Google sells books. People complain that the Apple apps will kill the Internet. Everyone complains about the providers. The recent FCC ruling regarding net neutrality must have occurred shortly after the book went to press.

Wu seems to think public opinion matters to companies (at least while some options are still available). To me, the problem is most advanced when it comes to those companies providing access. The latest FCC ruling while protecting net neutrality in one sphere (hard wire connections) allowed greater opportunities for cell providers.

I have been attempting to understand what Wu thought was the government’s responsibility and have checked my own vagueness against what other pundits seem to claim he said (Inside Higher Ed, Laura Miller). Different pundits seem to come different conclusions Wu’s recommendation regarding the role of government. My understanding was that he argued that the role should simply be to promote competition and this could be achieved through his “separation principle”. So, for example, there is danger when the cable company both provides access and has digital content to sell. There would be greater danger if a company generated content, sold the content, and provided access to the Internet. So, if a company provides access with little competition (e.g., the only cable provider in a community), this is a dangerous situation because it is in the interest of the company to both make money on access and also on the content it wants to sell.

Wu seems to think public opinion matters to companies (at least while some options are still available), the convenience may limit complaints until it is too late.  To me, the problem is most advanced when it comes to those companies providing access.

NY Times Interview

Powered by ScribeFire.

Google comes up in the debate over net neutrality. ISPs have complained that Google should pay more because the content they offer fills up bandwidth out of proportion to the fees they pay. Net neutrality is a tough issue because the illustration offered is not necessarily at the core of the motives of ISPs. For example, in prioritizing bit types to thwart bandwidth hogs, companies could also protect their self interests (e.g., cable providers could slow online video to protect a primary service they offer).

While this is how I have previously understood the intertwined motives and challenges of providers, the Wall Street Journal just published an article that presents a position I find confusing. Google wants providers to offer them a fast lane. Now, the situation is growing more complicated. Providers may offer priority delivery of bits provided by paying customers (e.g., Google). Would allowing this business practice also allow cable providers to slow the video bits competing with the paid video business of the same cable company? These situations are different, but once the provider can slow/speed one category of information, will any justification for doing so be necessary?

You might not expect that the issue of which bits receive priority when passing through the Internet would seem an important political issue for the new administration, but the analysis offered by the WSJ may surprise you. The article notes that Google CEO Schmidt is a member of the transition team. The new Google position would seem just as much a violation of net neutrality as the thinly hidden agenda of the cable providers. One of the cool things about the Internet has been the role inexpensive access has provided in encouraging innovation. Hope this is not another of those “pay to play” political/business games.

Since the WSJ article appeared, Google has responded to clarify its position.

The net neutrality debate has become more real with Comcast’s decision to cap downloads. However, with Comcast, the present cap is set so high, one would have to be into a lot of online video to approach the cap. I suppose heavy use of NetFlix might quality, but the targeted folks are likely BitTorrent users. As long as the cap is based on volume and not MIME type I am less concerned.

I wonder if there is any way to actually learn how much content a household downloads? If providers keep such data, it would seem reasonable to make it available to users.

TechCrunch has put together a post that summarizes many of the pros and cons and has generated a good deal of discussion.

Over the past couple of years, I have written about the issue of net neutrality on multiple occasions (e.g., July 2006, Sept. 2007, Feb. 2008). The issue is now again in the news because of a bill introduced by Senator Markey (Washington Post description).

Here is my interpretation of the issue. Net Neutrality assumes that providers should not be able to block or “shape” the rate at which packet types are forwarded to end users. The ISPs argue that massive amounts of bandwidth are being eaten up by certain types of information – e.g., video (some of which is illegal bit torrent traffic). The opposing perspective argues that internet providers often are involved in multiple businesses and could shape traffic to improve financial gains from other services. For example, companies providing DSL (phone) connections may slow VOIP to benefit the long distance phone side of the business and cable companies may slow video to benefit the movie on demand side of the cable business. (View a short YouTube video explaining core net neutrality issues.)

There are educational issues involved in this controversy. Distance education and expectations regarding home access by all students assumes high speed access at reasonable rates (see recent EDUCAUSE statement in the Chronicle of Higher Education).

The bill would require the FCC to study the various issues associated with ISP claims of the shrinking of free bandwidth.

What would be a fair solution? To me, there are a couple of issues:
a) Companies should not be able to control which legal uses of the Internet will be supported.
b) Volume of downloads/uploads may represent a reasonable basis for setting monthly fees under circumstances in which users have reasonable access to multiple providers. When competition exists, it would seem a reasonable means to set costs.
c) Some provision should exist to offer all access to a resource that is becoming more and more essential.

I am assuming a and b could be solved through some form of regulation. It is c that presents the greatest challenge. Clearly, c would require some form of subsidy. The FCC already concerns itself with this type of issue as it relates to phone service.

Blogged with Flock