Will Industry pull the plug on open Internet access?

Many other stakeholders would like to have regulations enacted on Internet traffic. The entertainment companies that produce media content are interested in protecting their works. There are several stories that have covered the trading of video and music content. The media companies want to protect their profits by restricting the illegal trading their content through inspecting internet traffic. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner have all lobbied against Net Neutrality and could be a gatekeeper position without pro-neutrality regulation.

Many companies have announced support of Net Neutrality. Google, Amazon.com, Ebay, Microsoft and many content producing organizations have made officially statements. Educational related institutions such as the Educause and the ALA (American Library Association) have made pro-neutrality statements as have journalist groups. The FCC has taken a pro-neutrality stance as well, reiterating the need to stand up for consumers rights. Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has sponsored a bill, HR 5353, that requires;

High-speed access providers, primarily cable and phone companies, to adhere to nondiscriminatory principles, while still managing their networks to combat spam, child pornography, illegally distributed movies, software and TV shows.

This subject affects the general public but many are unaware of the impact for themselves, if they are even aware of the subject at all. When an ISP’s customers access the Internet, the consumer does not apply much thought to the choses of content they request. Information and service can be requested without thought but what if access to Google, the search engine, was restricted or throttled by the ISP. If it were decided that Google searches were taking up to many resources on the ISP’s network, it’s services could simply be restricted. Then the ISP could offer Google search services as a premium service to consumers and require additional charges for access to Google. This is just one example of a service that could be restricted but “Google search” could be replaced with any service that the ISPs could up-sell to the consumer. This model is similar to the cable television where there is a basic service and then charges for the more desirable services. Is it better for consumers to use this model or a dumb network model? The “dumb” network model is where consumer pays for a connection and data is transmitted through the network from point-to-point with no regard to the content. Consumers have become accustomed to little or no restriction to their Internet access but severe restrictions are a real possibility. This also becomes a social issue because if people cannot afford access to the premium information we will create another division to hold down those less fortunate. Consumers need to be concerned because if Network Neutrality is shelved they will be affected, and the results are not likely to be in the consumer’s favor.

Since the FCC ruling against Comcast they have made a few more anti-neutral moves. They are challenging the ruling from the FCC in the U.S. District court of Appeals in Washington D.C., and I am sure that this will take a few months at least. In additions Comcast has announced a new bandwidth cap for their customers of 250Gb, wheich they stated would only affect 1% of customers. I agree that currently, this would affect only a few but it appears that this is a proactive action limit. As customer start to consumers more online media over the next few years their usage will creep closer if not exceed this limit and Comcast will have set previous prescient that will be more difficult to appose. How do consumer combat these restrictions? Easy, with their wallets! They can purchase their services elsewhere.

The public needs to become familiar with this issues because it has lasting impact for consumers finances and future possibilities of services. This is a complex issue with a scope that goes well beyond what can be discussed here but it need serious study and review. If the content and services are filtered by a few companies this is likely going to inhibit innovation. This is also a First Amendment issue by restricting free speech communication between consumers and independent content producers on the Internet. But if no filtering is implemented or it is limited many more options will be available for consumers and companies alike. The Internet has been compared to the “Wild West” which is not inaccurate. This phrase conjures up visions of exploration and innovation. The western exploration was a exciting time for the country and we now have similar opportunities with the explosion of the Internet. This is not the time to restrict innovation that may inhibit the growth of the U.S. markets and consumer experience.

Network Neutrality is a complicated issue with many stakeholders and angles of concern. A majority of the United States population has some form of Internet access and currently this access is generally not filtered for content that the consumer is requesting. Filtering the content of the data being transmitted between consumer and network resource is what some parties would like to implement. Net (Network) Neutrality defined implies that there should be no filtering or limitations set on transmitted content and applications, that Internet connectivity should be treated like a raw public resource. In other words, “Network neutrality is an umbrella term for the debate over whether the FCC or Congress needs to spell out what broadband networks — essentially, an entity like Comcast.net that provides an Internet connection to customers — can and can’t do in managing Internet traffic to their customers”. The filtering model would be more akin to cable television, where the consumer would get charged extra if the wanted unrestricted access to a specific Internet site like Google. This issue is of concern for many parties including the movie industry, music industry, websites, mass media, Internet service providers and most importantly the consumer. While the media has coved this issue extensively, the general public does not seem engaged in this debate. This is a complex issue that deserves a serious review as the U.S. government considers implementing legislation to weigh in on one side or the other of this issue.

The parties that have concerns in the Network Neutrality debate vary but they can generally be divided into two constituents consumer and corporate interests. Internet service providers (ISP) are one group of the corporate stakeholders in the hot seat. One ISP, Comcast has been accused of restricting peer-to-peer traffic. When first accused on November 1, 2007, Comcast denied the accusations but later after being publicly outed, it admitted and tried to justify there actions. They were found to be degrading peer-to-peer Internet traffic on their network which violates the FCC 2005 Internet policy statement which states that consumer are entitled to all Internet access. Many articles were written concerning Comcast’s actions which can be found with a quick Internet search, but it has come to a resolution. On August 1, 2008, the FCC ruled against Comcast and provided the following conclusion in a press release:

The Commission also concluded that the anticompetitive harms caused by Comcast’s conduct have been compounded by the company’s unacceptable failure to disclose its practices to consumers. Because Comcast did not provide its customers with notice of the fact that it interfered with customers’ use of peer-to-peer applications, customers had no way of knowing when Comcast was interfering with their connections. As a result, the Commission found that many consumers experiencing difficulty using only certain applications would not place blame on Comcast, where it belonged, but rather on the applications themselves, thus further disadvantaging those applications in the competitive marketplace. (FCC.gov, Aug 1, 2008)

Peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing applications can be used for distributed network file exchange between participants computers. While many ISPs assume that the files being exchanged are illegal content such as pirated television programs, movies, and music; many legitimate content providers are using this method to streamline distribution and defray bandwidth costs. For example, media company Revison3 uses P2P to distribute original video content to consumers. Many other companies such as the major television networks have also experimented with P2P network distribution for media content because of the large file size of media content. This is just one case where an Internet application service has been restricted because it was assumed that the P2P application were negative as apposed to the actions of a limited number users. There are many reasons that ISPs could justify restrictions in the name of the greater good of consumers but it is ultimately just PR spin. So, should cars be outlawed because they can transport stolen goods? This approach to network management is not logical or consumer friendly.