Net Neutrality On The Hill

nternet has always been a source of confusionof ISPs denying some websites access to their
and angst on Capitol Hill. It has also been one ofnetworks altogether. These scenarios are viewed
the more glamorous issues among theas an inherently unfair model subject to antitrust
lawmakers, because the impact it has had on theconsideration, at least by some Democrats.
way Americans communicate, seek entertainmentGoogle recently threatened to use antitrust
and do business.lawsuits should net neutrality initiatives fail and
As the speed of the internet has grown, as itsthey detect any signs of discrimination against
"bandwidth" has allowed it to carry large amountstheir traffic.
of content at high speed, the internet highwayFreedom of Speech or Freedom of Profit?
has become an enormously lucrative commercialThe philosophical issues are interesting. But more
highway. It has also become much like a utility, inimportant in this issue are the potential business
that its services are delivered primarily by cableopportunities for both content providers and
operators and telephone companies, each industrynetwork operators. The telephone companies that
operating in most markets as a de factohave large numbers of high speed internet
monopoly.subscribers intend to get into the television
Now, those cable and telephone companies thatbusiness via the internet.
are the internet service providers, or ISPs, areYahoo and Google see opportunities in online
looking for additional revenue services beyond thevideo, and alliances between such websites and
subscription fees that they charge consumersmovie companies are a real possibility. The cable
each month. They are considering charging majorcompanies that provide internet service are also
content providers on the web a fee for massiveinterested in proprietary pay-per-view services
use of their networks. Large websites such asdelivered via the internet. The service providers
Amazon, Google and Yahoo would be charged awould like to see a "tiered" structure wherein they
fee for the amount of traffic they put into thecan charge large websites (with large revenue
webpipelines.streams) a fee. In addition, they would like to get
Keep in mind, these providers already pay forinto thecontent business themselves.
their bandwidth. They pay for their connections toThe ISPs argue that additional revenues are
the Internet through various datacenters andnecessary in order for them to continue to invest
connections to various backbone networks. Somebillions in high speed networks to better serve
don't do much to dispel the confusion their claimstheir customers. They are finding some allies
may cause, allowing people to think Googleamong hardware manufacturers, who see the
somehow isn't paying for their bandwidth usageimplementation of a fee structure online as
already. All major content providers do pay, therequiring additional in-home equipment. Some
issue at the heart of this debate is whether theyconservative Republicans are opposed to net
will have to pay more due to their size, or sufferneutrality as well, agreeing that the ISPs would be
less-than equal treatment when an ISP'sdenied the ability to expand their networks
customers attempt to reach their sites.without the additional revenue.
Net Neutrality Comes to Center StageA Regulatory Conundrum
What has brought this issue to a head is theThe FCC has left the issue alone. At one point,
pending ability of broadband cable networks tothey dismissed the issue when raised by Amazon
deliver movies and other first run videoand other major web content providers, saying
programming over the internet. But the successthat regulation was unnecessary for activities that
of Google and Yahoo with their advertisinghad yet to occur. Then Madison River, a
revenue model and Amazon with its enormoustelecommunications company in North Carolina,
retail presence has convinced the cable systemblocked internet telephone service over their
operators that they are entitled to some of thetelephone network which they used to deliver
revenue these companies are deriving fromboth internet access and telephone service. The
services delivered and transactions concludedFCC is no longer in a position to ignore the
over their networks - at no cost.matter, as they will be the enforcement body for
Thus "net neutrality" has become a buzzword onwhatever rules emerge from the current debate
Capitol Hill and the focus of more than oneA bill addressing net neutrality that was proposed
proposed piece of legislation in the past eighteenby Democrats failed in the House in April.
months. One of the problems facing theHowever attitudes are shifting. In May, a
lawmakers is that no one is exactly sure whatseemingly bipartisan bill came out of the House
net neutrality means. For the big contentJudiciary Committee that would add specific
providers, it means no additional fees for theirlanguage to existing antitrust law guaranteeing net
presence and availability on the internet. For theneutrality. The Judiciary bill would make it illegal
ISPs, it is a veiled term for regulated rates - orunder antitrust law for network operators to
more accurately, the inability to create a rateimpose fees or to fail to provide their services on
structure for major websites."reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms."
The National Cable & TelecommunicationsFurther, the bill would bar ISPs from blocking or
Association (NCTA) has fought cable regulation forimpairing internet sites. The house has two other
years, and sees net neutrality as anotherpending bills as well, both emanating from
governmental threat. Says a spokesman, "ForDemocrats. One of the proposals is from
instance, does network neutrality mean thatCongressman Ed Markey, a longtime expert on
network operators can't block spam? Shouldcable and telecommunications issues. He proposes
network operators be allowed to stop virusesto amend a telecommunications bill slated for
from spreading? Should large users ofconsideration by both houses later this year.
peer-to-peer software be allowed unlimitedOn the Senate side, there is a major rewrite of
bandwidth so service for other users is slower?"the Telecommunications Act of 1996 underway
The major internet search engines and retail sitesand debate over this issue has made its way into
are active in their support for net neutrality, andthe process. At the moment, the proposed bill
they are joined by some likely allies includingincludes language that charges the FCC with
internet freedom of speech advocates, liberalwatching for potential violations of net neutrality
organizations such as MoveOn and someand reporting its findings to Congress. This "when
libertarian organizations.in doubt, commission a study" approach suits the
The legislative concern is that the monopolisticNCTA perfectly. It's a good-government approach
service providers would be in a position to favorto continued non-regulation, and as the NCTA
some websites over others - and that providingpresident told a Senate committee "This is the
unlimited high speed delivery capability to majorkind of issue that is most appropriately studied a
sites will push other websites into slower lanes onlot more.
the internet highway. There is also the possibility