Net Neutrality in a Nutshell: Final Blog

Here are two videos summing up net neutrality.

Pro-Net Neutrality:

Anti-Net Neutrality:

Prioritizing Content

One of the key arguments in this debate is the ability an incentive for ISPs to prioritize content in the way they control traffic. The first video demonstrates this idea and the potential harm to consumers it could inflict; if a service provider signs a contract worth shit-tons of money with a website or content provider, they are going to fulfill their end of the bargain! The second video claims that if one was to be "blocked" from visiting Google so that they would use Yahoo! instead, this person could easily switch to an ISP that doesn't restrict them. Though true in principle, the phone and cable industry is monopolistic and thus has very little competition. The cost for a consumer to switch could be painful, not to mention the potential for the only other available providers to also restrict and prioritize content. I posted a blog earlier about Comcast effectively blackmailing a Netflix partner last year, so we know this is more than possible.

Government Involvement

Another facet of this debate is the government's involvement. Some believe market forces left to themselves in this situation will provide consumers with the best outcome. The FCC's intervention on certain matters is and has been receiving scrutiny, mostly on the grounds that granting it oversight on net neutrality will snowball into a totalitarian vice-grip on our last free-speech frontier. I myself acknowledge this fear, for such extreme extrapolations in the past have occurred (i.e. Brendan mentioned Social Security numbers in his presentation). But the government's focus in this situation is on preserving openness and access for consumers and a level playing field for content providers and many other firms that rely on the internet for business. The general principle of free-market forces being left to their own device is not amusing anymore; I feel that such a concept would have been widely accepted as antiquated after the 2008-to-present economic travesty this country faced as a result of decreased regulation in the private sector, but clearly such asinine displays of irresponsibility are still advocated. A balance needs to exist.

Some Proposed Solutions/Alternatives

• Pay-per-site billing structure
• Increase competition at the "last mile"
• Let FCC regulate on case-by-case basis
• Municipality operated broadband

The pay-per-site option is not viable. Imagine paying $39.99 a month for Yahoo.com and 200 other sites, and paying extra for anything not on the list. How unfair is it to smaller websites that rely on ad revenue when they are totally unaccessible to the everyday user? Or even if you have to pay for every site you visit--imagine the complexity of this, too: if my fantasy team updates every time somebody scores or a stat changes, am I paying? Are you paying for pop-ups (which, granted, are mostly obsolete at this point)?

The increased competition at "last mile" is a long-term goal whereby consumers are free to choose their providers with low transition costs. The idea of the FCC regulating is not even a proposed solution, as it is the reason for litigation occurring right now. But, it is one alternative to the status quo that should be considered.

Having municipalities operate broadband would be the most undesirable. It would (i) freeze the pace of innovation and (ii) services would not be delivered as efficiently as private ones. I'm sure there are tens of other potential solutions out there, but these are a few of the main ones.

Current Situation

As of right now, there is some serious litigation happening, as well as legislation moving through Congress (see previous posts). I was surprised to see articles dating as far back as 2006 talking about the Senate shooting down bills with pro-net neutrality components. It seems that this issue continues to drag on month after month with no end in sight. Hopefully something can be hashed out soon.

In Summary

This blog enabled me to discover much about net neutrality. I have seen clearly both sides of this argument and hope I have been able to demonstrate such for those of you reading. It is a very controversial issue, which is something I knew I would be getting into. I feel I may have been less objective about the topic as others were about their own, but I feel passionately about few things these days and I feel this is one topic that struck me as significant. I hope that with my opinions aside I was still able to address the entire spectrum of this debate for everyone to draw their own conclusions.

Miscellaneous

Wireless companies like Verizon seek nondiscrimination exemption based on "competitive nature" of the wireless sector.

-Fun Fact: Verizon and AT&T control over 60% of the wireless market

Google late last year released a joint statement with Verizon that essentially contradicts statements it made in 2007 when it purported to be a net neutrality advocate.

Al Franken likes net neutrality.

FCC Wins First Battle

Oops--I somehow completely missed this breaking news from earlier this month, publishing a post on the House voting results in lieu of this. They somewhat overlap.

According to this New York Times article from April 4th, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals rejected the lawsuit by Verizon and MetroPCS from earlier this year, claiming the lawsuit is "premature."

Essentially, when the FCC comes up with some regulations, those regulations must be reviewed for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, as well as go through a 60-day public comment period. Then, the Office of Management and Budget will conduct a review with a 30-day comment period. After these steps have taken place, the rules are published to the Federal Register. Only after this, and within 10 days of it, can challenges to the rules be made. Hence, the federal court of appeals hearing this case dismissed it as too soon (ftw).

Although it seems to be a notch in the "win" column for Net Neutrality advocates, the war is early yet and shit's gonna hit the fan soon enough.

House Overrides FCC Regulations

The House successfully voted 240-179 recently against the FCC's behavior as of late. The vote will move to the Senate where it will need 51 votes. President Obama has said that upon arriving at his desk (should it pass the Senate), he will veto. The Senate will then need 67 votes to override the veto.

[Article]

Notice in this article how the major talking points revolve around the notion of the Obama administration (or government in general) being put in its place rather than the specifics surrounding the FCC's actions or what its regulations actually dictate. The idea that its regulations promote fairness seems to be overlooked in lieu of the rhetorical "government abusing power" concept.

Stay tuned for updates on the voting process.

=EDIT=

I want to express my understanding that much of the discussion here, too, is about the administration circumventing Congress by empowering its agencies to act on its behalf. As I do concede that executive authority should definitely be checked, the inability of Congress to address this issue necessitates FCC intervention.

Republicans Try to Block FCC Regulations

Less than two weeks ago, House Republicans successfully attached an amendment to a sweeping spending bill that bars the FCC from using government money to enforce some of its net neutrality regulations on ISPs. The rules/regulations in question prevent ISPs from discriminating against Internet content and services, including services such as Skype and Netflix, that could "compete with their core operations."

[Jump to view article]

Verizon and Metro PCS are already in a court dispute over such regulations in a district court of appeals. It just so happens that last year, this same court ruled against the FCC, saying that it overstepped its authority in reprimanding Comcast for filtering out traffic to a website that it clamed consumed large amounts of bandwidth.

Now, as much as I would love to believe that market forces, left to their own device, will be more efficient than with government regulation, the financial disaster of the last two-and-a-half years leaves me all but exhausted on that notion. Why not learn from facets of free-market failure and try to transpose that knowledge to other areas (i.e. the net neutrality issue). I think that it's a bit out-of-touch to suggest we let the market guide itself completely. Just last year, Comcast essentially blackmailed a partner of Netflix, which the partner obliged to keep its customers happy.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore), who sponsored the amendment to the bill and sits as chairman on the House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, said his measure is "about keeping the government out of the business of running the Internet." I found that quite rhetorical, as he seems to be equating these measures by the FCC (which are promoting an absence of restrictive and discriminatory policies) to some authoritative government intervention that stifles freedom. Furthermore, as noted in the article, the rules do give ISPs flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with network congestion and unwanted traffic as long as they publicly disclose those practices. Essentially, the rules seek to abolish the aspect of "paid prioritization," or favoring traffic of business partners or the ISP itself.

Any thoughts? Perhaps I am missing the "pros" of letting ISPs control the internet and am solely focused on the "cons." Regardless, I think too much of anything is a bad thing--whether it be too much autonomy on behalf of the ISPs or too much government control over how they let the ISPs do business.

Introduction

The internet is an omnipotent force. It is as essential to our daily lives as the electricity that allows it to function. Over the past decade, there has been growing debate about the implications of restricting the flow of information over the internet by governments and the private sector alike, and whether or not these manipulations should be legal. I will be delving into the fire and trying to get a clear picture of what our futures may have in store for us regarding our ability to use the internet and what we may face in the wake of new developments.