[Ecommerce] InformationWeek: Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious

[Seth Johnson]

> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198001557


Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious

The haggling over whether Internet service providers should be able to
charge more money for some traffic, or whether the law should mandate
equal access, is increasingly contentious. Here's a guide to the
players.


By K.C. Jones,  InformationWeek

March 16, 2007


Net neutrality is so contentious that many people debating it cannot
even agree on a definition. Traditional allies and foes have
rearranged themselves to form strange new alliances and divisions.
Even the founders of the Internet and the World Wide Web -- including
some who worked alongside each other -- are at odds over how to move
forward.

The Gun Owners of America and the Christian Coalition have lined up
next to MoveOn, the American Civil Liberties Union and Democratic
presidential candidates to support what they describe as a federal
anti-discrimination measure. Telecommunications and cable companies
competing for Internet subscribers are on the other team in the fight
against net neutrality, which they argue is a biased and unclear term
for laws that would stifle innovation.

Columbia University Law Professor Timothy Wu is widely credited with
coining the term net neutrality in a paper he published in 2002. He
describes it as a network design issue based on the idea that
"information networks are often more valuable when they are less
specialized -- when they are a platform for multiple uses, present and
future."

"A useful way to understand this principle is to look at other
networks, like the electric grid, which are implicitly built on a
neutrality theory," Wu explains on a site he created to explain the
concept. "The general purpose and neutral nature of the electric grid
is one of the things that make it extremely useful. The electric grid
does not care if you plug in a toaster, an iron, or a computer.
Consequently, it has survived and supported giant waves of innovation
in the appliance market. The electric grid worked for the radios of
the 1930s works for the flat screen TVs of the 2000s. For that reason
the electric grid is a model of a neutral, innovation-driving
network."

The Internet now allows information to move in data packets through
networks of computers and routers on a "best efforts basis." In other
words, the system routes packets with little regard for what type of
information or applications they contain or who created them.

Proponents of net neutrality argue that cable and telecommunications
form a duopoly that threatens the current system. They say that,
without some type of anti-discrimination law or standards, cable and
telecommunications companies could control users' access by blocking
content from competitors, favoring certain applications, charging
higher rates to deliver information into people's homes and offices
and failing to inform people of their capacity.

Since cable companies act both as Internet service providers and
content creators, net neutrality proponents argue that they have a
financial interest in prioritizing their own content and threatening
online speech and democracy. Likewise, telecommunications companies
acting as service providers could degrade Voice over Internet
Protocol, which in many cases allows people to make phone calls
cheaper over the Internet than over traditional phone lines.

Some telecommunications executives have argued that they should be
able to prioritize information from sources paying higher fees or
serving higher purposes. A prioritized system, which would create an
Internet fast lane for higher-paying content providers, would help
fund network improvements, according to Internet service providers.

Net neutrality opponents, including President Bill Clinton's former
press secretary Mike McCurry, also argue that Internet service
providers should be able to direct heavy traffic and screen out some
material, like viruses and spam. They say some content, like medical
information, is more important -- and therefore should take priority
over -- other information. They argue that innovative applications in
medicine and other fields will spring from improved services levels
guaranteed through higher premiums and government regulation would
kill the freedom that has allowed the Internet to flourish.

Both sides look to the origins of the Internet and its founders to
support their points. In a piece published in The Washington Post,
Michael Katz, an economics professor at the University of California
at Berkeley, and David Farber, a computer science and public policy
professor at Carnegie Mellon University, put it this way:

"No one would propose that the US Postal Service not be permitted to
offer Express Mail because a "fast lane" mail service is
"undemocratic," yet some current proposals would do exactly this for
Internet services," they Katx and Farber wrote. "For this reason,
foreclosing the emergence of alternative pricing regimes for
innovative services would be ill advised."

Katz and Farber met with other computer science, economics and law
experts at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania and
Carnegie-Mellon University, to conduct an interdisciplinary analysis
of network neutrality. They concluded that federal agencies should
enforce antitrust laws to address problems after they arise.

In a speech at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif.,
earlier this year, IP protocol inventor Robert Kahn said net
neutrality is a slogan for a mandate that would prevent innovation on
the networks. He and other engineers argue that legislation could
restrict developments that would improve data delivery and alleviate
traffic burdens.

Net elder-statesman Vinton Cerf submitted written comments on net
neutrality to Congress last year, when he was unable to attend a
hearing while he and Kahn received the Presidential Medal of Freedom
that day for creating the Internet protocol.

"The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is
in many ways directly attributable to the architectural
characteristics that were part of its design," he wrote. "The Internet
was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. The
Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at
each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By
placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of
the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation. This
has led to an explosion of offerings -- from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to
blogging -- that might never have evolved had central control of the
network been required by design.

"Many people will have little or no choice among broadband operators
for the foreseeable future, implying that such operators will have the
power to exercise a great deal of control over any applications placed
on the network," he continued. "As we move to a broadband environment
and eliminate century-old non-discrimination requirements, a
lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that
the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell
consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what
people can do online."

Google joins Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon.com and World Wide Web inventor Sir
Timothy Berners-Lee in promoting network neutrality.

The Dynamic Platform Standards Project proposes that Congress clarify
the meaning of offering Internet connectivity and set up rules for the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce them.

"We recommend the prosecution of distorted offerings of Internet
connectivity as "deceptive practice," the group explains in a
petition." We believe the gut feeling -- that one cannot discriminate
and still call the service "Internet" -- is founded in reality. The
very term "Internet" suggests that participants assume their traffic
will be passed without interference; the concept is backed up by over
thirty years of standards and ISP behavior."

The group agrees with Cerf, as well as telecommunications and cable
companies, in stating that Congress should be cautious about
regulating something that works so well.

Measures legislating net neutrality died in Congress last year after
heated debate, but proponents managed to stall an entire
communications overhaul by tying a net neutrality amendment to the
bill. U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who championed the
cause, now heads the House committee in charge of the Internet. That
committee has begun holding a series of hearings on the digital future
of America.

Democrats, who supported net neutrality in greater numbers than
Republicans did, increased their power during the November elections.
They have teamed up with Republicans to reintroduce net neutrality
legislation.

In the meantime, both sides are lobbying members of Congress and both
sides have announced studies that purport to show their
recommendations would promote innovation, while the other side's would
stifle it.

Researchers at the University of Florida's department of decision and
information sciences analyzed the issue using game theory. The
researchers found that improving the infrastructure would reduce the
need to pay for preferential treatment but the incentive for broadband
service providers to expand and upgrade would decline if net
neutrality ended. Japan and Korea have net neutrality, greater
competition among broadband providers, and higher broadband speeds,
than the United States, they said

The Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy
Studies announced recently that their model, rooted in "transaction
cost" economics, found that network neutrality would prevent
cost-saving measures for services like streaming video. They said it
could also shift sales from independent content providers to the
broadband network's content affiliate, defeating the purpose of
anti-competitive rules.

"The growing capacity demands of video on the Internet, coupled with
the pernicious increase of spam and viruses, threaten an on-line
traffic jam," Phoenix Center President Lawrence Spiwak said. "To
maximize bandwidth, operators need the flexibility to meet the
different needs with different types of services, but many network
neutrality proposals mandate rigidity. Such flexibility will likely be
crucial for mobile broadband content, where content and applications
may need to be customized for particular customer equipment, carriers,
and service packages."

The FTC recently began workshops on the issue and commissioners have
pointed out just how polarized the arguments have been. They are
suggesting compromise. One commissioner suggested using language in
the AT&T BellSouth merger agreement as a starting point. It states
that the companies will continue providing the same level of support
in operating the core, or backbone, of the Internet and maintain a
neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet
access service. The agreement lasts for two years or until Congress
passes legislation on network neutrality.

Lower levels of government are also jumping into the fray. Last month,
Maryland lawmakers introduced legislation that would require broadband
providers to report on their offerings. The bill aims to protect net
neutrality but could stall because of arguments over whether it
threatens protections on federal commerce, according to an article in
the National Journal.

New York City Council Member Gale Brewer, who heads a local government
technology committee, introduced a resolution supporting federal net
neutrality legislation. In statements supporting net neutrality as the
best path for preserving an affordable, accessible and free Internet,
Brewer warned that extra charges could destroy it. She also summed up
the one point on which both sides agree: "Competition to provide the
best and fastest access to the Internet helps everyone."