Richard Ziegler

Preserving America’s Internet through Network Neutrality legislation

Our Internet: it’s the major connecting tool of the twenty-first century. People take online classes through the Internet, and connect with people thousands of miles away through text, voice, and data. Millions of products are purchased through Internet sites every single day, and the interconnectivity of the web has revolutionized the way the world works. Network Neutrality is now being represented as a set of laws that will govern America’s Internet. These laws would prevent Internet Service Providers, the people who supply our Internet, from picking and choosing what content to deliver over their broadband Internet lines. These types of proposed rules have been realized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and they have now been proposing legislation for Network Neutrality principles. This is the base for Network Neutrality debate: Internet Service Providers are trying to fight against this type of legislation, whereas lobbyist groups like SavetheInternet.org are pushing for these laws to be enacted. State legislatures even go as far as to claim that this type of legislation is bad to the Internet’s health. A letter from the American Legislative Exchange Council describes the proposed Network Neutrality regulation as an “unprecedented foray into government control of the broadband private networks and the Internet” that could result in economic slowdown and setback in the states (State Legislator). They also claim that if adopted, extensive regulatory control and uncertainties will harm innovation, stifle investment, and curtail job growth. But I would argue against the American Legislative Exchange Council by saying this; Network Neutrality legislation is key to preserving America’s Internet as it stands today. Network Neutrality should be preserved in American society by being written into American law: that is, Network Neutrality should be safe-harbored from the major telecoms in America who want to take away these principles of today’s Internet. Firstly, as described above, Network Neutrality legislation will preserve the “open-standard” web that we as American’s currently enjoy. Secondly, Network Neutrality legislation will increase competition among Internet Service Providers, giving American consumers relief for the lack of choices they have over home broadband Internet access. Without Network Neutrality legislation, America’s revolutionary and vastly relied upon “Internet” could be completely compromised by the very companies that supply it to our homes.
Starting the data stream is the issue of preserving America’s “open-standard” Internet model. The Internet has long adhered to one basic principle: Nobody’s in charge. The Internet's success, after all, comes from its openness: The platform-neutral, open architecture of the Internet allows anyone with a basic grasp of its protocols to reach an audience online (EDITORIAL). The result: A vast outpouring of creative and innovative content, from kids in their garage to multinational corporations, all equally accessible with a few taps on a keyboard. That hallmark owes to the Internet’s grand design. It's basically a global confederation of unrelated computers, making it impervious to hurricanes, earthquakes and other disasters. Hackers regularly attack, but can't shut it down. Governments, try as they might, also can't control it (Cauley). But the Internet has its Achilles' heel: Internet service providers, or ISPs. They control the on-off ramps used by millions to enter and exit the World Wide Web each day. Access is typically provided by phone and cable TV companies, via upgraded phone lines and high-speed cable-TV modems (Cauley). This is where Network Neutrality comes into play. Network Neutrality is the concept that promotes Internet equality by outlining a few basic principles. First, Internet Service Providers should not have the right to discriminate between different forms of Internet traffic, which is outlined in subsection 8.13 of the FCC’s proposal: “Subject to reasonable Network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner”(FCC). In other words, the ISP cannot slow down certain forms of Internet media just because they use up more of the companies resources (transferring files over bit torrent, streaming high-definition video, hosting a web server, as compared to checking Facebook, using Google, or writing a blog). Second, all ISP’s have to connect to the exact same Internet by law, which is outlined by subsection 8.5 of the FCC’s proposal: “Subject to reasonable Network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet” (FCC). This means that they cannot pick and choose which websites can and cannot be connected to, which keeps ISP’s from intentionally crippling its competition, and ensures that people like me, who hosts a web site out of my house, can still broadcast my web site across America as uninterrupted as a big site like Google or Yahoo. As ambiguous and general Network Neutrality sounds, one of the most focused ideas on Network Neutrality can be found from the source: Tim Berners-Lee, the “founding father” of the Internet, quotes: “If I pay to connect to the net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level” (Berners-Lee). Basically re-iterating my explanation above, that no matter what service you choose, what speed your Internet line delivers, that you will be guaranteed the exact same Internet as everybody else in America.
It is true that critics of Network Neutrality fear, with some justification, that excessive rulemaking could stifle as-yet-unknown technological innovations. It's true that the rules must walk a fine line -- preserving the open access while giving providers the necessary ability to manage and grow their Networks efficiently (EDITORIAL). Some could argue that these types of policies shouldn’t be addressed by government legislation, a “laissez faire” approach to Network Neutrality. The Wireless Association (CITA), a Washington-based trade organization, says the proposed rules could have "the unintended consequence" of limiting "competition within the industry [that] has spurred innovation, investment, and growth for the U.S. economy” (Demarrais). They claim that this type of policy making will ultimately inhibit broadband providers from offering expedited delivery speeds at higher prices. But technically, isn’t the idea here to connect everybody to the same Internet no matter what the price or speed is? Referencing back to the quote from Tim Berners-Lee, It’s about communicating at the “same level”, not necessarily at the same speed. If a service provider wants to roll out a new higher-speed fiber optic network, they could go ahead and do so at a higher price, just as long as they deliver the exact same content as a lower speed Internet connection. Another claim against the FCC comes from The Citizens Against Government Waste: “The new rules would require providers to treat all web traffic equally and would prohibit them from restricting access to illegal content (CAGW). Providers would also be barred from slowing access to services or sites that consume excessive bandwidth or are offered by rivals” (CAGW). In response to this, the FCC created a set of exceptions for reasonable Network management:
(a) reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to
(i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its Network or to address quality-of-service concerns; (ii) address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful; (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content; and (b) other reasonable Network management practices (FCC).
Clause (b) may be overly broad at this point, but clearly the FCC knows that illegal content needs to be addressed, and they also acknowledge that the Internet is most definitely, not perfect. With Network Neutrality, the goal is to try and keep the Internet as “neutral” as possible. Even though it can be tested and verified that a YouTube video does use more bandwidth than doing a Google search, our Internet today delivers both at exactly the same speed: instantaneously. This is also the same concept across a small American business who would want to deploy a small web site; If a small business vendor wants to place a simple web site up on the Internet, it should continue to load just as fast as a large corporations complex website. Today, if I were to visit RichardZiegler.com (my theoretically speaking, homebrew webpage), and compare the loading speed of my site to Amazon.com (a very large and well established online distributor), they would both load at exactly the same speed. If the Network Neutrality principles stated above do not make it to legislation, telecoms can, and will, find a way to make my homebrew website load slower than Amazon.com (it’s in the telecoms best interest as Amazon.com wrings in significantly more hits, as well as larger profit margins). And the sad reality is that this type of traffic filtering would be applied solely for the Internet companies’ net profit, with a side effect of net loss for America’s “open-standard” Internet.
Moving along the data stream, is the issue of competition among service providers. The need to protect the Internets transparent nature reaches farther than just equality, The ISP business has also became significantly more lucrative and monopolistic. Owing to advances in technology, AT&T, Comcast and other Internet Service Providers today can selectively block, or degrade, any online application. They can also slow down to a crawl any transmission -- such as a movie download -- that might compete with their own pay-for content. And the potential for ISP meddling ramps up sharply in the face of big media mergers, such as the one contemplated by the Comcast-NBC deal (Cauley).They are not supposed to sit in the middle of the (broadband) pipe and decide who gets to be a winner and who doesn't. A good example of how this setback competition could occur, stems from competition between the free TV streaming web site Hulu.com, and let’s say, a Comcast streaming web TV service. Comcast has all ready proposed to have a pay-content online television system, and they would be much happier if there was little to no competition against their service. If they charged an extra ten dollars a month, they would pay special attention to making sure their service is the best option out there, and may decide to allocate less bandwidth away from Hulu.com’s free television show streaming service. Essentially, they could cripple Hulu.com’s free tv-streaming service for their pay-content system, which would be traffic discrimination at the least, as well as leaving the consumer with little choice but to pay for television on the Internet through Comcast. In order to combat this, the FCC as part of their proposal for Network Neutrality, has outlined a couple of key policies to prevent this.
§ 8.5 Content: Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet. § 8.7 Applications and Services: Subject to reasonable Network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice (FCC).
These rules would essentially give a bar to these kinds of practices, meaning that if Comcast does decide to discriminate between Hulu.com and Comcast’s streaming service, they could face fines for preventing any of its users of using the service of their choice.
Another important concept for Network Neutrality, is giving consumers the ability to choose between more than one Internet Service Provider in their local area. For the sake of refuting the next point, the CAGW (Citizens Against Government Waste) claim that: “The proposed regulations are an unnecessary government intrusion into the free market and attempt to solve a problem that does not exist. The broadband industry is already a competitive market. The government should not be regulating the pricing options that broadband service providers can charge” (CAGW). But is the broadband market really as competitive as they say it is? Just six phone and cable TV companies control 65% of the USA's 80.9 million broadband users, according to a new report by tech researcher Forrester (Cauley). The top four -- AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- dominate, with around 46%. A mix of smaller players (phone, cable, satellite and fixed-wireless) make up the balance (Cauley). This could be considered hardly competitive on my behalf. Personally, I have found that the current broadband Internet market today is not competitive at all. A good example of where this can be a problem actually lies close to home for me. My father just moved into a circa 2004 suburban house in the small town of Forest Lake Minnesota. Upon looking for a broadband Internet carrier, my father and I were disappointed to find that the only land-line carrier available in our area was Quest DSL, and Quest phone service. We just moved out of an apartment on the other side of town, and at that apartment building we had our choice of Quest DSL, US Cable Hi-Speed, and Frontier DSL. So Quest being our only option, my father and I bought Quest’s DSL service (which is a major downgrade, US Cable delivered a much faster service at the apartment). After a few months, my father and I determined that we were not satisfied with Quest’s service. Does this mean we have a comparable option? Not in our area, we are stuck with Quest as long as they have complete control of our phone lines. My father and I have been petitioning US cable to come out and save us from our misery, but at this point, we have to pay for a service we deem dismal solely because there is no other option available. Our calls to US cable will continue, but the hope of more competition allowing us to switch services could be right around the corner, with subsection 8.11, Competitive Options. “Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers” (FCC). Looking back at my story, let’s say that US cable just doesn’t want to come out to my area, but a new Minnesota ISP service, (which ill aptly name “Zippy Internet”) does find my area profitable. They would have to create jobs and Internet Information Systems that would allow them to deliver this type of service in my area, thus creating more jobs in the economy. Some could argue that Zippy Internet’s conception would invariably lead to job losses by Quest and US cable, but I would favor to say that more competition would increase not only customer satisfaction, but also the number of employees in the Internet Information Systems career field. The idea here is that the lines shouldn’t have to be a one-company exclusive system. In European countries like the UK, Germany, Romania, and Sweden, multi ISP systems have all ready been deployed, allowing most metropolitan consumers a fair and competitive choice between 3-6 Internet Service Providers in most homes. Drawing the big picture here, if the FCC and congress actually push these proposals into U.S law, consumers will end up winning in the long run.
So coming down to the “end of the data stream”, Network Neutrality is continuing to prove its worth as the Internet continues to grow. Network Neutrality legislation will keep Internet Service Providers from changing content delivered over the Internet, Increase competition among Internet Service Providers, and provide a legal spine in which America’s Internet will be preserved. In a world full of major communication giants that hold the little guy hostage, we need more choices for service providers that can satisfy not only consumer demand, but consumer satisfaction as well. If my story about Quest being the only provider at home sounds like your situation as well, there is hope. Log on to SavetheInternet.com, and sign the petition to congress for Network Neutrality. America deserves an Internet that will continue to equally represent the little guy posting a one-page web site, to the big guys posting a large scale search engine. This is the founding principle of the Internet today, and it must be preserved for future generations, and for our generation, to enjoy.

Berners-Lee, Tim. “Net Neutrality: This is serious.” Decentralized Information Group at Michigan Institute of Technology. 21 June 2006. Web. 28 February 2010. .
"CAGW Files Comments on Net Neutrality. " Business Wire 14 January 2010 ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
Cauley, Leslie. "An Internet open to all, but controlled by none :FCC's efforts to formalize rules on Network Neutrality draw fire. " USA TODAY 9 Dec. 2009, ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
"EDITORIAL: An open Internet depends on net Neutrality. " McClatchy - Tribune Business News 4 November 2009 ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
KEVIN DEMARRAIS. "An Internet tug of war: Are tolls ahead :The FCC's ruling on Network Neutrality will likely have a big impact on you. " The Record 22 Oct. 2009, ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.
"State Legislators Say Net Regulation Will Hurt Investment and Jobs. " PR Newswire 14 January 2010 ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
The United States Federal Communications Commission. In the matter of preserving the open Internet broadband industry Practices. GN Docket No. 09-191: January 14, 2010. PDF file.