Understanding Network Neutrality
From wsuwiki
Contents |
What Is Network Neutrality
Governmental regulation of the Internet is a very important issue facing the future of communication technology both in the United States and across the world. Many of those who take advantage of the varied and vast amounts of information and services found within the world-wide-web give little thought to the regulatory policies which control the scope of their Internet experience. However, in the last couple of years, more concerned citizens are taking the initiative to educate themselves about the crucial discussion revolving around network neutrality. What does network neutrality mean? In essence, network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet.[1] Without network neutrality, broadband Internet service carriers would have the authority to limit access (bandwidth) to certain content or application providers.
The History of Network Neutrality Public Policy
Historical context and an understanding of communications regulation in the United States is essential in understanding network neutrality. The Federal Government has provided laws and regulations protecting consumers from online partiality dating as far back as the Communications Act of 1934, long before the invention of the Internet. This act created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and has served as the basis for regulating the communications industry ever since. In 1996, the Telecommunications Act passed by Congress included several regulations which mandated and further strengthened what, at the time, was considered the underlying necessity of network neutrality. Institutional perceptions began to change shortly after the turn of the millennium when, in 2002, the FCC in a groundbreaking ruling determined that cable broadband Internet providers do not have to share their fiber optic lines with competing Internet service providers. In the summer of 2005, after the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s authority in making its ruling, it was extended to include exemptions from common carrier regulations to telephone companies offering broadband Internet service. Suddenly, all broadband Internet service providers were thrust into previously uncharted territory.
The issuance of those two rulings shook the Internet community to its core; some even claimed the foundation of the free and open Internet was put in jeopardy.[2] As a result of these decisions, Congress began drafting a major overhaul of the 1996 Telecommunications Act called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006. Last year the House of Representatives passed COPE but without including any network neutrality protections. The Senate Commerce Committee followed suit soon after, passing its own substitute telecommunications bill called the Communications, Consumers’ Choice and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006, but again without meaningful neutrality safeguards. The debate today is focused on the full Senate, where supporters and detractors of network neutrality regulations are gearing up for the climax of a fierce legislative battle that will define not only government policy but also the culture of the Internet for decades to come.
Proponents & Opponents of Network Neutrality
Proponents of network neutrality insist that broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online, and that were the government to permit them to do so it would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet.[3] Network neutrality opponents believe that eliminating network neutrality regulations would serve to benefit users of the Internet because no matter how carefully drafted, legislation that prohibits content discrimination cannot account for every situation in which blocking content may be correct[4], as in the instance of child pornography. They also claim that as a result of network neutrality, investment in the physical infrastructure necessary to provide high-speed Internet will slow down and the U.S. will fall even further behind the rest of the world, and our rural and low income populations will wait even longer to enter the digital age.[5] Some believe that regulation might be necessary to keep the internet optimally functioning in the future.[6] Prominent politicians have even made attempts to introduce legislation designed to either preserve or prevent network neutrality rules.[7] As consumers of both Internet content providers and Internet service providers, it is hard for people to reconcile these diametrically opposed arguments and come to some sort of conclusion about how they think future government regulation of the Internet should be organized.
Both sides of the network neutrality issue are armed with persuasive talking points and seemingly sound arguments for their positions. Supporters believe that the consequences of a world without network neutrality would be devastating and that innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted.[8] Network neutrality detractors downplay that view as alarmist and insist that “if the government regulates universal treatment of all traffic (i.e. network neutrality), neither consumer nor product innovators of any size get the services that they desire.[9] The rationale of the powerful telecommunication corporations in pushing Congress to remove network neutrality provisions from the law is thus: it will allow them to recoup expenses incurred as a result of being forced to upgrade fiber optic networks that have become overloaded with high-data streams because of bandwidth-intensive content providers on the Internet. Whereas the major Internet and technology corporations argue that they should not be monetarily penalized by the Internet service providers for clogging up networks, just because they utilize more bandwidth than other content providers doesn’t mean they should have to pay a premium for it. The Internet service providers would like to make bandwidth-intensive Internet content providers pay extra to help offset the costs of infrastructure enhancements, and the content providers want to keep their no-cost dominance over the majority of lanes on the information super-highway. Regarding network neutrality, corporate America’s concern is profit margins.
Bibliography
Net Neutrality. Google. 2007. http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
Is Net Neutrality a New Regulation? Save the Internet. 2007. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq
Can Net Neutrality Be Lethal? Hands Off the Internet. 2007. http://www.handsoff.org/hoti_docs/quick_facts/NN_and_online_hate.pdf
Our Internet, Our Jobs: Why Neutrality Regulations Will Harm Job Growth. Hands Off the Internet. 2007. http://www.handsoff.org/hoti_docs/quick_facts/job_growth.pdf
Net Neutrality, Utopia vs. Reality. WSU MIS 171 Wiki. Summer 2009. http://wiki.wsu.edu/wsuwiki/Net_Neutrality%2C_Utopia_vs._Reality
Net Neutrality Legislation. WSU MIS 171 Wiki. Fall 2009. http://wiki.wsu.edu/wsuwiki/Net_Neutrality_Legislation
What’s At Stake If We Lose Network Neutrality? Save the Internet. 2007. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq
Online Overload: How to Cope with the Data Tidal Wave Hitting the Web. Hands Off the Internet. 2007. http://www.handsoff.org/hoti_docs/quick_facts/internet_capacity.pdf