Tag: 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.

C|NET News offers an interview (print and short video) with Michael Copps – FCC commissioner. The commissioner supports retaining the openness of the Internet and he urges content providers to become involved in the political process to prevent carriers from using the delivery system to manipulate user choice.

By the way, C|Net is experimenting with a type of concept map that shows how stories and concepts are linked (see the second page of the interview article for an example related to this issue).

Podcast attempting to explain issues.

You may have heard about the competing political agendas behind the net neutrality issue. A powerful voice in this debate is committee chairman Ted Stevens of Alaska. The following is a widely distributed statement by Senator Stevens most claim illustrates the pro provider (not information, but service) position on this issue.

The Senate Commerce Committee moves on with a proposal that would offer providers new opportunities without the assurance of net neutrality (eSchool News source).

The attempt to assure net neutrality was an attempt to address the following issue (quote from linked article):

Supporters of the amendment argued that service providers could give preferential treatment to business partners or use pricing and access limits to discriminate between web sites and other internet users. Phone companies have talked about creating a “two-tiered” system in which users of their networks–including schools and other web site operators–desiring faster service for the delivery of broadband or voice-over-IP applications would have to pay more. Those who couldn’t pay would be relegated to the internet “slow lane.”

The neutrality issue is not about setting a price point for connection, it is about providers ability to alter download speed of categories of data in support of provider self interest. For example, a telephone company may degrate VOIP speeds to encourage traditional phone use. A cable company might degrade video downloads to encourage pay per view or the purchase of additional channels. The provider would not be “neutral” with respect to the content one could effectively download from the Internet. The potential problem would seem to be most dangerous in locations where real competition does not exist (perhaps less populated areas without alternative providers) and users could not switch to a different provider offering more competitive services.

An ad sponsoring the local news this evening asked television viewers to act in opposition to the Snowe-Dorgan “Internet Freedom Preservation” bill (Net Neutrality). The ad included a web address (http://www.handsoff.org/). Senator Dorgan is from ND, but this ad may be airing everywhere.

My previous post in support of the concept of net neutrality focused on an issue that the “hands off” site describes as “access tiering” – a practice in which network owners charge more for certain services or control the speed of a category of informtion packets.

I understand the issue of access tiering, but I am attempting to understand the competing position. Is it that the providers are claiming they need new revenue opportunities to encourage development of an enhanced net? What is unclear to me is whether new revenue opportunities would imply that existing user opportunities would go away? For example, would a VOIP channel without “break ups” be added if “free” Skype audio communication can be degraded or would a VOIP channel be available for a fee and Skype would continue be available for those willing to tolerate the service as is?

Byron Dorgan (Democrat from ND) appears to be playing a central role in maintaining net neutrality (Save the Internet analysis).

The battle for Net Neutrality – or Internet freedom – has significantly stronger bipartisan support in the Senate. Senators Snowe (R-Maine) and Dorgan (D-N.D.) have introduced the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006? that enjoys the strong support from the SaveTheInternet coalition.

Supposed threats to the Internet have floated through listservs in the past, but mostly these have been false issues. The COPE (pdf of legislation provided by Benton Foundation) legislation (you may recognize the phrase net neutrality) is very real and Internet users should pay attention.

COPE would allow providers to exercise control over the priority allowed different information types (again my interpretation). I know that my university does this to keep the university use of the Internet within assigned bandwidth limits (e.g., MP3 traffic is slowed during the day and allowed to move faster after hours). The difference is that the major providers could apply such priorities to their own advantage – e.g., those with an interest in traditional long distance could slow VOIP traffic to the point the low quality made such options useless.