Network Neutrality and Common Carriers
Anyone who is involved in networking and Internet technology has surely heard about the debate over network neutrality by now. The basic tenet of network neutrality is that the Internet should remain free (not as in beer) – IP carriers should not filter or throttle access to any part of the Internet. The problem is that ISPs are looking for new ways to generate money, so they came up with this idea that Internet access should be tiered: you get basic Internet for $20/mo, but if you want to access “enhanced” content like streaming audio and video, then you better start paying more. Not only that, they want to charge the content providers, not just their own customers, for the bandwidth used by these applications – every byte transferred gets paid for twice.
The argument from the ISP side is that they cannot afford to innovate and expand their networks if they don’t have some incentive to do so. Why should AT&T put a million miles of fiber in the ground if they can’t charge more for people using it? If the future is IP communication, then they need some way to recover the investment in improving the technology. The downside for consumers is that their ISP would now have the ability to decide what part of the Internet they can see – which many would consider to be a violation of free speech rights.
From the consumer point of view it looks and feels just like another way for the ISP to nickel and dime their customers. Time Warner recently caught a lot of flak for wanting to implement tiered pricing based on data transferred, but their revenue numbers conflicted with their argument that they were losing money. Broadband penetration was up and revenues were up as well, so what is the issue? The next step after pricing based on data transfer is pricing based on what you can do with your bandwidth. P2P traffic is frequently throttled by ISPs, often without telling their customers (though there are ways to tell).
Personally I think this all comes back to what is referred to common carrier status in the telecom business. This means that phone companies are not aware of and not responsible for what traverses their networks. In this regard, telephones are a utility, much like electricity. If someone is using a Bell South telephone to setup drug deals, then Bell South can’t be implicated in the crime. Likewise, if someone uses electricity to grow or process drugs, the power company is not held responsible simply because they provided power.
I think one could argue that Internet access has reached the status of a utility – nearly everyone needs it and it has become a part of everyday life. A growing trend is for utility companies to provide Internet access because they are already running lines and pipes for water, sewer, and power – so why not throw a bundle of fiber in the ground at the same time? If you elevate Internet access to the status of a utility, then common carrier status suddenly becomes a big deal. Now, if an ISP is monitoring your traffic and deciding what you can see and do, then they cross the threshold and can (should?) be held responsible for the actions of their customers. So I guess it all boils down to these two questions:
- Is Internet access a utility such as electricity and telephone?
- Do the telecommunications companies want to give up their common carrier status?
I think that last question should be enough to scare any telecom provider away from even considering tiered Internet access.
