Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality 16 Net Neutrality MSM002MV MAN6073 Political, Social, and Legal Issues Facing Managers February 19, 2008 Net Neutrality Net Neutrality After previous failed attempts to succeed, new legislation has been presented to the 26 United States Congress again regarding Internet regulations. The latest attempt was presented as bill H. R. 5353 IH to the House of Representatives on February 12, 2008 . The new bill proposes to establish a policy to regulate broadband Internet access services. The bill is cited as the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008”. However, it is commonly known as “Net Neutrality” by Web-based companies who wish to ensure their content is available to the public without interference from communications providers. The latest bill is just the most recent legislation presented to Congress. Multiple bills were presented in 2006 and 2007; however no bills have received approval from both the House and Senate. The current bill is in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for review. The Federal Trade Commission released a report in 2007 recommending that policy makers proceed with caution in regards to regulating broadband Internet access . The report notes that there is generally more competition on the Internet, not less. Therefore, new regulation could actually cause harm to a vibrant sector of our economy. There are two clear sides to this debate. This paper will attempt to explain the concerns of both groups. In addition, the position of the author will also be revealed as a response to the most recent legislation. For Net Neutrality Net Neutrality means simply there should be no discrimination in Internet access. Regulated broadband access prevents Internet service providers from choosing what data packets receive priority on the pipes. Supporters of net neutrality contend that communications companies have the ability to choose what content runs in the express lane of the Internet . They Net Neutrality 36 suggest that the Internet is at risk because the communications companies are going to restrict high-speed transmissions to the highest bidders. According to the supporters of the bill, if communication companies are allowed to use tiered pricing to allow content owners to purchase bandwidth, it is expected that only large companies would be able to afford the high-speed pipes . Small business owners would be relegated to slow Internet connections to their content pushing consumers away from their sites. If an open Internet is not maintained, consumers could be impacted as well. Customers trying to access their company’s network from a provider that is restricting access could find a very slow connection limiting their productivity . Families could see increased upload times for photos, videos, and blogs if carrier’s preferred applications are not used. It is supposed that this is all possible if communication companies are allowed to choose or sell restricted bandwidth. The supporters of Net Neutrality including leading high-tech companies like Google, Yahoo, Amazon.com, Facebook, Microsoft, and Intel. Politically, the position is typically supported by high-ranking Democrats including presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. Against Net Neutrality Obviously, the primary opponents of the legislation include the nation’s largest telephone companies including AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and Embarq. Cable companies that have entered the broadband Internet access are also opposed to the bill. These companies also enjoy support from leaders in the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and Department of Justice. These Net Neutrality opponents content that the current environment is vibrant and growing. There is no need to regulate something that continues to grow at the rate the Internet is. Net Neutrality 46 For instance, Google’s YouTube.com, just three years old, is consuming as much bandwidth as the entire internet did in the year 2000 . Citing the Federal Communication Commission’s support of no new regulation, Hesse agrees that the current guidelines in place prevent Internet providers from scalping bandwidth to the highest bidder. The Commission monitors activity and reports regularly on the status of Internet traffic flow. In addition, the government has avoided regulating the Internet so far. Changing that stance would place a great risk on the success already achieved. It is unlikely that our government would take that risk. The communications companies are quick to remind the policy makers and the public that our Internet routers in the United States are enormous but still have a capacity limit. Today’s high-speed Internet routers can process 15 terabytes per second . This is enough to stream 15 million DVD-quality streams simultaneously. In order to maintain consistency in bandwidth, communication companies are beginning to add “smart networks” that are able to prioritize transmissions such as voice calls over general email traffic (2008). Reflection As a consumer, this author enjoys the ability to stream voice and data traffic over a highspeed Internet connection. There are merits to both sides of this argument. The Internet was designed to be open to everyone equally. This openness should be maintained but at what cost? The companies that laid the fiber and cable and provided the network hardware to allow the high-speed pipes around the world are still providing and maintaining that service in the 21st century. It is hard to imagine the inventors of the world-wide web ever imagined the amount of data that would be transmitted in 2008. While it is hard to trust corporations to maintain the Net Neutrality current status of the open Internet, the government should resolve to remain disconnected to 56 regulating Internet use. Unless the current growth of the Internet subsides or there are cases of mismanagement of data, communication companies should continue to monitor their own networks and optimize them for the benefit of all Americans. There have been so many advances in networking technology; certainly engineers will find emerging technologies, like the “smart network”, to keep our consumer and commercial economy dependent upon the Internet for years to come. Net Neutrality References 66