Earlier this month, Google and Verizon announced a joint set of policy recommendations for the enforcement of net neutrality. This comes hot on the heels of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) throwing up its hands in frustration on the matter. The network neutrality issue is not terribly unique in form — it involves an industry attempting to de-fang regulators — but it is unusual in that many people don’t have the first clue about it.
Here’s a primer: Net neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. Bits going across the wire should enjoy “nondiscrimination,” regardless of the information they represent.
In the United States, this is the way things have worked for most of the Internet’s lifetime, partly due to FCC regulations last significantly updated in 1996. However, the FCC’s grasp has weakened as Internet access increasingly takes place over nontelephone and wireless networks. At the same time, the amount of data going over the Internet has exploded, partly due to bandwidth-hogging applications like video service YouTube.
Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have to keep upgrading their networks to handle the traffic created by users of high-bandwidth activities, such as movie watching and file sharing. That’s a hugely expensive proposition. So they’re looking for ways to cut down on the need for upgrading networks. Prioritizing and filtering traffic are some of those methods.
Perfect, you say? Prioritize the important traffic and filter — or, at the very least, slow down — those pipe-clogging porno downloads? Well, you’d be agreeing with net neutrality opponents. Such arguments advocate that your Internet provider should be able to prioritize Internet traffic based on rules it defines, and doing so might reduce your broadband bill (well, maybe). In addition, opponents argue:
– Net neutrality is difficult to legislate.
– The market should self-regulate; rules are unnecessary.
– The government’s just likely to muck things up.
Fair enough, you say. Do what you need to do; just don’t mess with my Internet. Well, that’s the first problem with chipping away at net neutrality. Who makes the rules, and to what end?
Let’s say you’ve settled into the couch in your living room to watch “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” streaming from Netflix. What if your Internet provider decides that Jack Nicholson is less important than your neighbor’s work e-mail attachment, and all of a sudden your movie stops playing for a minute? That’d be annoying.
Maybe you would be willing to pay just a bit more to make sure you could watch Netflix without interruption. Now, what if your provider were to charge you $50 a month for this privilege? Could you switch carriers in protest? Sure you could, unless your provider had an exclusive agreement to provide access to Netflix.
Exclusive agreements are part of the long game, and one that net neutrality proponents worry about feverishly. Websites such as CNN might require Internet providers to pay them for access. Alternatively, Internet providers such as Verizon might charge individual websites to allow access for subscribers on their networks. (Neither of these scenarios, by the way, is far-fetched. ESPN360.com is only accessible to customers of certain telcos, and Verizon largely locks its subscribers into using Microsoft’s Bing search engine on their BlackBerrys.) At this point, the Internet starts looking like a giant cable television network. Consumers are definitely not on the winning end of that configuration.
Google and Verizon, in their Aug. 9 statement, concede this point. They agree that net neutrality should continue to be the norm for wire line (i.e., DSL or cable modem) Internet access. But they make a distinction between wired and wireless (i.e., 3G) Internet access. They explicitly carve out an exception for net neutrality on wireless networks.
In other words, to Google and Verizon, the wired Internet battle is over — but the fight for net neutrality on wireless (i.e., cell phone) networks has just begun. Do you really care if you can see Hulu on your iPhone? Probably not today, but maybe you would if wireless became your primary means of accessing the Internet. This is not an unlikely future, bearing in mind the rising number of U.S. households that have abandoned fixed landline telephone service in favor of mobile phones. Google and Verizon are attempting to stake their claim on that future.
In addition to the wired vs. wireless carve-out in their joint policy recommendation, Google and Verizon also advocate a mostly toothless FCC — one with limited enforcement capabilities and the ability to levy a maximum $2 million fine for net neutrality violations.
Of course, none of this means that Congress will pick up these recommendations and make them law. They’ll take your input (along with the input of various and sundry lobbyists) and make a call — maybe. However, armed with information about the issue, I encourage you to tell whoever will listen that you know what net neutrality is — and that you want one.
Sameer Soleja is an Associate Roundtable member of the Baker Institute and a consultant for a management and technology services firm in Houston. He holds MBA and Master of Public Administration degrees from the University of Michigan. Soleja was invited to post a guest blog by Chris Bronk, the institute’s expert in information policy.