COPEing With Digital Discrimination
Washington, DC., April 17, 2006. The Inernet has apparently hit the big-time. The days of a free, unregulated Internet are at risk of becoming a relic of the past as we (unknowingly) surfed into treacherous waters of bit discrimination; so much so that the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet is considering introducing drafted legislation in a bill likely to be titled, the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006," or COPE in the current session. If enacted, the proposed legislation establishes, among other things, the assurance of net neutrality.
Although the definition of "net neutrality" remains a subject of debate on the Hill, there is a general consensus that net neutrality ensures the consumer's right to use the Internet for content, applications, and devices of their choosing. Specifically, COPE encourages broadband deployment through the deployment, preservation, and promotion of the open and interconnected nature of the Internet through; (i) consumer access to the lawful Internet of their choice; (ii) consumer rights to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement (e.g. CALEA); (iii) consumer rights to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network (e.g., analog telephone adapters); and (iv) consumer rights to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Wikipedia defines network neutrality as a "principle of network design," by advancing that the concept, "in order to promote innovation, network service providers such as telephone and cable Internet companies should not be permitted to dictate how those networks are used (i.e., not permitted to ban certain types of programs, to ban certain types of devices connecting to the network, or to favor carriage of traffic to certain web sites over others)." In lay terms, the concept of net neutrality simply allows Internet use to continue in the same manner to which we have become accustom.
Cable television and telecommunications service providers, traditional opponents to network neutrality contend it opens the door for more intrusive regulation of the Internet, and that imposing such regulation will chill investment in competitive networks and will, as a consequence, preclude network providers the ability to distinguish their services in the marketplace.
Although such concerns appear plausible, it seems more likely that opposition to network neutrality stems from interest in revenue opportunities associated with the industry's embrace of a tiered Internet. Think of the dispute between ISPs and users as analogous to the feud between open-range ranchers and farmers of over a century ago; the ISPs want to "fence in" their networks, while Internet users argue the Internet-frontier should remain open to all. Tiering allows Internet service providers ("ISPs"), to determine the content carried across its network and restricts the use of customer premise equipment.
Under such a tiered (or "fenced") structure, an ISP has the ability to provide its customers with "preferred" content (i.e., as determined by the ISP), and to designate "premium" content, for which it charges an additional access fee. Because many ISPs are now offering VoIP services, its own VoIP services are included in the preferred category while competitive VoIP service traffic is subject to a premium charge. While this provides the ISP with an additional revenue stream, it has the discriminatory effect of discouraging competition among VoIP providers.
At least for the moment, regulatory and government authorities see more value in the continued development of the Internet than in the more-immediate economic benefits of tiered-access to providers. Many speculate, however, that once "adequate" settlement of the Internet frontier is established, the day's proposed restrictions will be lifted and allow for the full-economic development by service providers. Until then, squatters welcome!
Couldn't agree more. We fight this issue on a daily basis. We need this bill to pass...quickly!