The following is an example of my work written for JLMC 453 – Electronic Media Policy at Iowa State University. See more of my written work.
Since its creation, the idea of internet regulation has always been debated. In 2003, Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu formally debated and termed network neutrality (net neutrality for short) as an issue in today’s world (Wu). The issue has developed and has reached the point where it is today: standing before the FCC to be reviewed and possibly put into legislation (Greene).
Net Neutrality is a movement which is aimed at preserving the “open Internet” by creating government regulations, forcing internet service providers (ISPs) to share content and internet access equally among all subscribers, without discrimination. This would prevent ISPs from making different levels of service, or tiers, part of their business model. It would also prevent ISPs from blocking certain types of content or applications, like Voice Over IP (VOIP) phone services and bandwidth-heavy music and video content.
Proponents of Net Neutrality are public interest groups like the Consumers Union and major Internet application companies like Google, Yahoo, Vonage (Plunkett), and Microsoft (Open Letter). Founding fathers of the internet, Vint Cerf and Tim Burners-Lee, are in support of Net Neutrality (Internet Pioneers). Groups like the Free Press and the Media Access Project are also in support of Net Neutrality.
Opponents of the Net Neutrality movement have been part of the cable and telephone industry, namely AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner (SaveTheInternet). Other notable individuals opposed to the idea are Senator John McCain and inventor of the Internet’s TCP protocol, Bob Kahn (Farber).
Supporters of Net Neutrality describe the movement as a necessary and key debate for the future of the Internet. They claim that the telephone and cable industries will try to place limits on connections between users by being discriminatory in content. They put the industries in a negative light by revealing their lobbying habits and accused them of having “funded a massive misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising” (SaveTheInternet). Supporters of the movement also place a lot of emphasis in the timeliness of the issue, saying that, although the industry hasn’t begun the practices they’re worried about, they will soon be doing so, and the legislation needs to happen soon.
Opponents of Net Neutrality question the need for any regulation of the Internet, stating that the Internet has been fine without heavy government regulation. They also claim that the new regulation will have a negative impact on job growth, poorly affect rural internet users, and will be unnecessary in an Internet that already has rules protecting its users (HandsOff).
The two sides of the debate, rather than being consumer advocacy groups versus large companies in the industry, contain both consumer advocacy groups and large software companies like Google versus large telephony and ISP companies like AT&T and Verizon. However, the sides differ due to ways in which each side does business: companies like Google and Yahoo require companies like AT&T and Verizon to operate and provide their online software services to the users across the world. They want Net Neutrality to be enacted so the companies can’t limit the bandwidth and content transferred to the consumers. Basically, Net Neutrality advocates want the Internet to be a level playing field.
The side that advocates Net Neutrality is mainly basing its claims on the policy principle of public interest. Proponents say consumers deserve to have a level playing field and to “use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider” (SaveTheInternet). It also groups the corporations involved in delivering Internet access to consumers as the “other side” of the issue and demands that they become solely responsible with moving data, not altering or managing it in any specific way.
Supporters of the movement have used what former AT&T Chief Ed Whitacre told BusinessWeek as proof that telephone and cable industry leaders plan to implement tiers and discriminate connections for profit:
“Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?”
Opponents of the Net Neutrality movement want to have control over the pipelines they currently and previously have administered. For the most part, they base their arguments on the policy principle of competition. As stated on its website, the mission statement for the online forum NETCompetition.org is geared toward promoting “competitive Internet choices for consumers through an open, rigorous, and illuminating discussion and debate of “net neutrality” legislation/regulation” (NetCompetition.org). It could also be said that the opposing side of the issue is basing its claims on public interest, as consumers would be able to choose different levels of service and expect different things from different providers without Net Neutrality legislation.
Overall, the supporters of Net Neutrality want the FCC to create laws the prevent ISPs and network companies from restricting the flow and discriminating the content within the Internet model and to create government regulations that prevent the companies from using the services as a profit-making tool at the consumer’s expense. The telephone and cable industry that opposes Net Neutrality wants not only for the laws to not be put into place, but for laws to be made against such Internet regulation. Senator John McCain introduced the Internet Freedom Act which would prevent legislation in the area of Net Neutrality (Gross).
The Net Neutrality campaign seems to be more of a grassroots effort than the campaign opposing it, as the simple website SaveTheInternet.com puts in the issue into extremely simple terms. The simple site will appeal to people who don’t really understand the issue (or the technical and economic aspects of the possible legislation). The site also does its best to discredit the opposing side’s propaganda, going to the extent of calling the opposing side dishonest (SaveTheInternet.com). The anti-Net Neutrality campaign has been relying on lobbying congress to prevent the rules from being established. Since the advocates of the “competitive Internet” are mainly large network companies, the grassroots campaigns are less visible and are referred to as “astroturfing” by the Net Neutrality advocates (SaveTheInternet). The “competitive Internet” side also refers to maintaining the deregulation of the Internet which could easily become the cause of a transition from a Net Neutrality policy issue into a political issue.
Furthermore, one must look at the flow of money. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said McCain, who introduced the Internet Freedom Act, is the “the single largest congressional recipient of campaign contributions from the telecom industry” over the past 30 months (Carney). However, Obama has raised more money from companies in the software company than McCain. Google was Obama’s fifth top source for funds, as he received more than $800,000. In addition to Google, Obama received 13 times more campaign donations than McCain from employees of Amazon, another company lobbying for Net Neutrality (Carney). The battle has become political, and the issue has also become well-lobbied.
I predict the outcome will be in favor of Net Neutrality for several reasons. President Obama expressed his support of Internet regulation and Net Neutrality during his campaign in 2007 (MoveOn) and appointed Julius Genachowski as chairman of the FCC (Singel). Genachowski is pro-Net Neutrality. As the grass movement grows and the FCC starts proposing laws that regulate what telecoms can and cannot do with their services, I think Net Neutrality will make its way to law. Consumers will only see the positive, equality aspect they will be receiving with a regulated Internet and won’t be concerned about the giant corporations and the limitations to which they will have been restricted.
As Net Neutrality laws are signed into legislation, I expect consumers and the public will not see much of a difference. ISPs, however, will likely begin to feel cornered as their ability to make a profit is hindered. They can no longer conserve bandwidth by limiting users who create a large amount of traffic with online videos and VOIP services, and they can’t charge for different tiers of service because everything will need to be equal. Because of the changed profit scheme, they’ll likely begin charging consumers more for a flat monthly rate for their services. They may also begin charging by the byte, where users would be charged proportionately with the amount of content they transfer or download (Greene).
If the by-the-byte charging plans do become a reality, businesses and consumers alike will see implications. Businesses will have to look at how much they actually use the Internet and determine whether or not it’s worth the cost. Consumers will be able to use VOIP and video services on the web without the worry of being discriminated by the ISP, but they will have to pay for the extra bytes transferred (Greene).
Companies like Google and Amazon will no longer face possible barriers and obstructions by ISPs who would have wanted to limit their services and will continue to market their products to consumers. However, if they begin incurring more expenses by the new charging plans offered by ISPs, they may have to charge consumers more for the use of the services (Greene).
Critics also argue that, as mentioned before, things like job growth will be affected if Net Neutrality laws are put into place. For example, Hands Off the Internet claims job growth in the areas of broadband expansion and high speed network deployment to homes will decline because network companies (like AT&T) will be making up for the lost profit opportunity and limiting upgrades to their networks (Hands).
Critics on Hands Off the Internet also argue that innovation within Internet network expansion will be limited by Net Neutrality laws, particularly when it is needed the most. It says the streaming of online video and music downloads are becoming increasingly popular in addition to spam and junk mail, which clutter up bandwidth. In the theme of bandwidth clutter, critics argue that medical facilities will be negatively affected by Net Neutrality, as they need quicker access to health documents and images. They predict the speeds of Internet to medical facilities will be in the hands of federal regulators instead of companies themselves (Hands).
While I expect to see Net Neutrality legislation to pass, I think we’ll see telecom industries complain about the loss of revenue (or opportunity to create profit). Some groups will also complain about the lack of competition within the telecom industries due to governmental regulation. Will First Amendment freedoms be contested within the issue? Perhaps, as limiting ISPs to a certain profit area could be described as squashing their freedom of speech.
Regardless of the outcome of legislation, it will be interesting to see how the FCC and lobbyists affect the future of the Internet. For a medium started by a government project that has grown so rapidly without government intervention, the outlook of innovation and expansion may be questioned as legislation is passed. However, the consumer’s right to open and non-discriminatory Internet access will be solidified with new legislation. Regardless of whether or not Net Neutrality can be coined as “saving the Internet,” it will sure have an impact.
Works Cited
Carney, Timothy P. “How Google, Amazon profit from net neutrality.” Washington Examiner, 28 Oct 2009. <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/How-Google_-Amazon-profit-from-net-neutrality-8444767-66582212.html>.
Farber, David. “Common sense about Network Neutrality.” 2 June 2006. <http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200606/msg00014.html>.
Greene, Tim. “Net Neutrality FAQ: What’s in it for You.” 24 Oct 2009. <http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/102209-fcc-net-neutrality.html>.
Gross, Grant. “McCain introduces bill to block FCC’s net neutrality rules.” 22 Oct 2009. <http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/102209-mccain-introduces-bill-to- block.html?source=NWWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2009-10-22>.
“Hands Off the Internet – Quick Facts.” <http://www.handsoff.org/blog/quick-facts/>.
“Internet Pioneers Support Open Internet Policy at FCC.” 20 Oct 2009. <http://www.openinternetcoalition.org/index.cfm?objectID=72449D76-1D09-317F-BB439D6F734B217A>.
MoveOn. “Obama promises to reinstate Net Neutrality during first year in office.” 29 Oct 2007. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/29/obama-promises-to-reinsta_n_70317.html>.
“Open letter to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.” 1 March 2006, <http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/nn-letter-20060301.pdf>.
Plunkett, Jack W. (2008). “Plunkett’s Telecommunications Industry Almanac 2009.” Plunkett Research. p. 208. ISBN 1593921411, 9781593921415. <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6PUiN5cE7- QC&dq=%22data+prioritization%22+network+neutrality&lr=&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0>.
“Save the Internet – Frequently Asked Questions.” <http://www.savetheinternet.com/faq>.
Singel, Ryan. “Obama Nominates Net Neutrality Backer for FCC Chief.” 3 March 2009. <http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/03/obama-nominates/>.
Wu, Tim. “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination.” Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 2, p. 141, 2003. Available at SSRN: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=388863 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.388863>.