The 'Net neutrality tangle As lawmakers wrestle with an issue that has ramifications for us all, most people remain in the dark about why it matters Business First of Buffalo - October 27, 2006by Tracey Drury Business First With Congress back in session this fall, and elections around the corner, e-mail users have once again begun receiving messages challenging them to take a stand on net neutrality and to write to their legislators. Problem is, most people still don't really know what net neutrality is all about, or why they should care. The answer isn't an easy one, and that's part of the problem for Internet content providers trying to respond to user inquiries and, no doubt, legislators. In a nutshell, net neutrality is the theory that the Internet is open and free to everyone, regardless of whether it's a family posting photos online for grandma or a gargantuan user like Google, AOL or eBay. At issue is whether Congress should support some kind of legislation upholding that neutrality, essentially regulating how the Internet is used. The legislation is just one part of a huge communications bill, called the Communication, Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, which would allow phone and cable companies to offer video services through a national franchise system, versus city-by-city agreements. For clarity's sake, that means the people who support network neutrality want the government to step in; while those against it want an unregulated Internet to continue, with the government staying out of the argument. Seems easy, until you start to decipher the issues that arise, such as, what happens when the government gets its hands on the Internet? Could future regulations be implemented? And how would content providers as well as the telecommunications giants who control the pipelines - such as Verizon and AT&T - benefit or be held back? The general public should be more aware about the issue because it could have a significant impact on general users, said Marc Silvestri, president of LocalNet, a Buffalobased Internet Service Provider. "The public is largely unaware of the arguments being waged on each side and those that are aware are absolutely, staunchly defensive about defending net neutrality," he said. "I have not heard of one place that's advocating the dual level of Internet, unless you're a phone company." Any system that would create two tiers of service on the Internet is fraught with problems, Silvestri said. "It's against the very basis of what enables the Internet to grow and flourish the way it has in the last 10-12 years," he said. "As an Internet provider, we all agree to handle each other's mail, packets and Web sites for no cost. The freedom of everyone handling everyone else's traffic and equalizing the playing field - that's what's at stake."
Wikipedia, an online public encyclopedia, has an extensive and fairly unbiased listing on net neutrality, listing consumers rights groups, groups such as the American Electronics Association and large content providers among the supporters; while opposition comes from the telcoms, as well as network equipment manufacturers and free market advocacy organizations. A plethora of Web sites have sprung up to try to answer these questions. Here are a handful of their explanations: www.savetheinternet.com - The site says the nation's largest telephone and cable companies, such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner, want to eliminate net neutrality and become Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. The site says the telcom providers would tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data, discriminating in favor of their own products while slowing down or blocking their competitors. The site says that maintaining net neutrality ensures that the network's only job remains moving data - not choosing which data to privilege with higher quality service. www.att.com - AT&T agrees the Internet should be completely accessible to consumers and with no blocked content, but it says Internet content providers have hijacked the concept of net neutrality and are making it a rallying cry to protect their business interests. A statement from AT&T on its stand says it's pressure from these ISPs and content providers that have made this an issue in Congress, calling for unnecessary regulation of the Internet. AT&T says the debate is really about how to expand and upgrade the network, creating high-speed bandwidth to support all the content. It's only fair, the company says, to expect the content providers that require this premium bandwidth to absorb some of the costs associated with its delivery. www.google.com says network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. This neutrality, Google says, is what has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow and innovate. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. www.cnet.com - Online and print media have also weighed in. Cnet says the question is whether Congress should pass new laws barring network operators, in general, from prioritizing their own Web content and services. It also covers whether the operators should be allowed to make special deals with third-party content providers that want their material to be delivered more quickly or prominently. Dave Mancuso, manager for external affairs at AT&T, said the network operators are looking for ways to drive revenue so they can continue to build the network required for next-generation services. "We want to charge the heavy industrial users of the Internet so we can recoup the costs of what it costs to run their traffic on the 'net," he said.
"The Googles say we want to block traffic unless people pay a premium to use the Internet. The argument boils down to who is going to end up paying for the development of the network," he said. Other countries have the benefit of government subsidy for development of their networks and broadband systems - putting them far ahead of the U.S. The gap in funding is pushing the U.S. to the back of the pack in terms of international broadband development, Mancuso said. Arguments that say the telcom companies want to pass costs onto the average user or block traffic don't make sense, he said. "Our business is predicated on how much traffic we can push through our network. The last thing we want to do is block traffic," he said. "We want to be able to let the market set the rates we charge for Internet access, for building the pipes. We want to look at the opportunity to charge large customers based on usage so we can continue to build and develop the network and be profitable." Aside from whether users will ultimately see fees or a two-tiered system, the biggest argument in the net neutrality debate centers around government regulation. Dan Kohane, a senior partner at Hurwitz & Fine P.C. and longtime Internet legal expert, says government regulation could carry the possibility of future content restrictions and censorship. "The Internet has traditionally been the one place where you could get any kind of information you wanted at any time on any subject," he said. "Once the government begins regulating what you can and can't get, it is making decisions and that's a scary thing." The U.S. government usually does it in the guise of protecting people, whether it's protecting children from pornographic images, young people from buying alcohol or drugs or anyone from buying materials for meth labs, he said. Instead, content regulation should come from the people on the receiving end, like parents, employers or school and library administrators, not on the broadcasting end. Universal access must be maintained regardless of what happens at the Congressional level. More than any other communications tool in the past 100 years, the Internet has done more to bring the world together, he said. "It's all about free speech. You don't have to like it, but you have to respect people's right to say what they want to say," Kohane said. OR you can just run ol' Dave just as a mug, in which case you wouldn't have to cut anything at all...