The U.S. House of Representatives Says No to Net Neutrality

FCC Scraps Net Neutrality
The Internet is a worldwide, publicly accessible computer network that links government agencies, educational institutions, commercial enterprises, and individual users together.  It allows for the easy exchange of information, as well as other services like e-mail, streaming videos, online games, and shopping.¹  To engage in any of these activities, a user’s computer sends and receives bits and packets of information to and from other computers on a network that links millions of computers worldwide.  These bits and packets are sent via many different types of media, such as fiber optic cables, telephone wires, and Wi-Fi, all of which are collectively referred to as “pipes” The quantity and speed in which a pipe can process data is known as bandwidth.  In the end, these pipes allow the Internet to function.

The pipes themselves are usually owned by Internet Service Providers (ISP’s), such as Verizon or Comcast, whom users must pay in order to access the Internet.  In the past, ISP’s had a policy, mandated by law, to transport “bits of data without discrimination, preference, or regard for content.” ² Thus, all information that traveled through the “pipes” was treated equally.³ This meant that whether someone wanted to look at ESPN’s website, listen to an online radio broadcast of the BBC, or read a friend’s blog, the transfer of bits of information received as much bandwidth as the network could afford to give the user. 

All websites competed equally for bandwidth and no site was given preference.  This policy was known as “net neutrality”, and it has governed the way the Internet has worked since its inception.  Net neutrality prevented ISP’s from charging content providers higher prices in exchange for faster connection times or for guaranteed space for their content on broadband networks.⁴  

Yet ISP’s are no longer bound by the policy of net neutrality.  The policy was rejected by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in early June 2006 in a decision removing the regulations that guaranteed it.⁵  Without net neutrality, ISP’s will be able to offer prioritized bandwidth for content providers who choose to pay for it.  Those sites that pay to have their bandwidth guaranteed will not have to compete for bandwidth against all the other sites on the Internet. In the end, companies and individuals who produce websites and other online content may have to pay higher fees in order to ensure that their content reaches users.
 
In reaction to the FCC decision, an effort was made in the U.S. House of Representatives to reverse this change.  Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) tried to attach an amendment to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE Act) that would have placed net neutrality in the law once again.⁶  The COPE Act was passed by the House on June 12th, 2006, but Rep. Markey’s net neutrality amendment was rejected by a vote of 269 to 152.⁷ Now the bill must go to the Senate.  If the Senate passes the COPE ACT, without any provisions for net neutrality, some, like the Save the Internet Coalition, predict it could be the end of the Internet.⁸ The question remains: would the Internet be better without net neutrality?

In Favor of Net Neutrality

The answer to that question is being contested by a number of special interest groups.  The Markey amendment has received support from Internet content providers, such as Amazon.com and Google, as well as a number of individuals and groups who use the Internet to publish their work, provide information, or do business, such as bloggers and groups like the right-leaning Christian Coalition and liberal Moveon.org.  As Ben Worthen of CIO Magazine writes, supporters of net neutrality believe the Internet represents “a set of ideals like openness, self-governance, and non-discrimination of content.”⁹  In their opinion, the end of net neutrality means the end of these ideals.

Smaller content providers, like those in the blogosphere, fear they will receive inferior connections for their content because they will not be able to afford the cost of better access.  They worry that their websites will lose users to big corporations because their sites will take too long to load.  Ultimately, there is a belief that without net neutrality the power to choose what goes on the Internet will move away from individual users to ISP’s.¹⁰ Net neutrality advocates accuse the ISP’s of wanting to undermine the ability of users to go to any site they choose.
As Jeremy Lundblad of PBS’s Newshour writes, many are afraid that the end of net neutrality will “alter the freedom and innovation that characterized the Web in its early days.” ¹¹

Against Net Neutrality

On the other hand, the ISP’s, such as big telecommunications and cable companies, like AT&T and Verizon, oppose net neutrality.  They argue that it has prevented those who have invested billions in the infrastructure that makes the Internet function from rightly profiting from their investment. 

They say that they bear both the costs for uploading content and downloading content while only profiting from the former.  The Chairman of AT&T, Edward Whitacre Jr., said that content providers were getting a free ride.  He complained, "They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires. . . . 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!'' ¹²

Opponents of net neutrality believe that allowing for prioritization of content will benefit the market greatly. As television and telephone services migrate to the Internet, they must be able to differentiate which content is important and which is not.¹³  ISP’s claim applications like streaming video could get priority access to bandwidth.¹⁴ 

In addition, services such as health care monitoring may well move to networks with guaranteed security and quality because bandwidth could be assured. They assert that by prioritizing which content gets bandwidth, no one will have to worry about the network being tied up by excessive traffic.¹⁵

Net Neutrality Debate May Go Abroad

As the debate plays out in the United States the international community is paying attention.  CEO Kai-Uwe Ricke of Deutsche Telekom, a German telecommunications company, said recently, “Content providers…should pay for using new super-fast Internet access…These companies need infrastructure…It cannot be that infrastructure providers…continue to invest, while others profit from it."¹⁶  If the end of net neutrality results in profits for the telecommunications and cable industry in the United States many abroad will want to follow.¹⁷  Thus, the same debate may be raging around the world soon enough. 

Too Soon To Say

In the end, it is probably too soon to say whether ending net neutrality will be a good or bad thing or what outcome it will produce.  ISP’s could try to block the sites of certain content providers.  Madison River Communications, a small ISP in North Carolina, blocked Vonage VoIP, an Internet phone company.¹⁸ In response, the FCC ordered Madison River Communications to pay a $15,000 fine and give Vonage access to its network.¹⁹ This case shows that blocking a competitor’s site is possible and the question that needs to be answered by Congress is whether these kinds of activities will be allowed.  Yet there is simply no way to know what the effects of ending net neutrality will be until after the Senate finishes deliberating and the FCC drafts new regulations.

Net neutrality’s days seem numbered but it is still too early to say for certain whether it will be gone for good.  The Financial Times reports that content providers like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Ebay are mounting an unusually strong challenge to the telecommunications companies who have spent over $50 million in lobbying Congress.²⁰  These large content providers have taken their cause outside Washington D.C. and are doing their best to win the public over by turning the issue of net neutrality into an issue of free speech.  More than 1 million people have signed an online petition asking Congress to readopt net neutrality. 

Furthermore, net neutrality supporters can count on the support of every Democratic presidential candidate, and half the Senators on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over the issue.²¹    

As a result, the battle over net neutrality is far from over and will most likely spill out of the halls of Congress and become an issue in the 2008 elections, forcing candidates and voters to decide where they stand on the issue.  At this point in time the two sides seem irreconcilable but that does not mean a solution acceptable to both sides cannot be found. 

A compromise proposed by the Center for Democracy and New Yorkers for Fair Use Technology demonstrates one way that both sides can get what they want.  These organizations suggest that separate tiers of service for products like phone and television be created while all other public content, like blogs, be treated equally.  They also suggest that ISP’s offer exclusive high-speed services to those who can pay but guarantee a minimum amount of broadband service for regular users.²²

Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that the end of net neutrality will be a defining moment for the Internet, one that decides whether the Internet is a free market of ideas or just another tool of commerce.