How "net neutrality" might change if phone and cable companies are allowed to create "fast lanes" for big customers.
The Internet was designed to treat all traffic with equal priority. Web pages from Google or Bank of America are transmitted via the same network nodes at the same speeds (and with the same occasional logjams) as the latest updates from Mom and Pop's RV Park.
But this tradition of "network neutrality" has never had the force of law. Now a movement is afoot in Congress to codify this egalitarian idea, as part of upcoming revisions to the Telecommunications Act, which was last updated in 1996.
Meanwhile, lobbyists for phone and cable companies have launched an all-out campaign to keep network neutrality requirements out of the legislation -- claiming they're ready to offer premium services to their largest customers, and that they need to do so to recoup the billions they've invested in faster Internet backbone connections and fiber-optic links to private homes.
In such a world -- where companies who can afford to pay will reach consumers faster -- websites owned by organizations or individuals who can't pay the fees would be relegated to second-class status. And that might ultimately shrink the range of resources and viewpoints available to average Net users, according to proponents of network neutrality.
"The Internet has been an unrivaled medium for free speech," says Craig Aaron, communications director for Free Press, a nonpartisan Internet policy think tank in Washington, DC. "With network neutrality, any little website can grow into the equivalent of a TV network and attract a mass audience. But if we give the network to the operators, then we have something that looks a lot more like cable TV, where there are 'choices' -- but they're all pre-selected by the programmers and the channels that get favored are the ones they own."
Millions of dollars are being spent to sway members of Congress on this issue, and lawmakers are likely to settle it within the next year. If regulations limiting tiered Internet services become law, nothing much will change for consumers. If the principle isn't codified, however, the decks will be clear for the nation's largest Internet service providers -- the cable and telephone companies -- to create a "pay for play" Internet.
What might this two-tiered model look like? The cable and telephone companies haven't been explicit about their plans for offering faster access to higher-paying customers; but using documents from network hardware and software makers, such as Cisco Systems, it's possible to construct a snapshot of how a tiered Internet would work -- and what it would be like to use it.
For one thing, a next-generation Internet with premium toll "roadways" would be fundamentally unlike the current network, which was not engineered to separate traffic into faster and slower pathways.
Under the standard Internet Protocol, information hops across the Web from node to node in small bundles, called packets, each bearing the address of its destination. And these nodes are indifferent about the content of packets; packets that belong to an instant message between two love-struck 14-year-olds are handled with the same care and swiftness as a video conference between two multi-national corporations.
Guest (Sir Lanse)
Article misses point - iTunes Tax
The reason for this is the ISPs want a piece of the iTunes pie.
Google, Yahoo etc wont be hurt until more of their content is video. The ISPs see iTunes content being worth a lot per packet. They are looking for ways to get some of that money. The rest of the arguments are smokesceens and additional ramblings. If the toll roads are allowed, how much construction will continue on slow roads?
Who says it will be only 2 tiers?
It could become many many tiered.
What about intermediate wire providers? Will it matter how far away the site is?
Guest (Couldb)
So, if the ISPs have a log of who sent what to whom, and what the content was-----then what? These days we might be justified in being paranoid! Besides cynical about the ISPs and big$
Guest (David S. Isenberg)
The article creates a dangerous mistaken impression when it says, "this tradition of "network neutrality" has never had the force of law. Now a movement is afoot in Congress to codify this egalitarian idea. . . "
In fact, the idea of Network Neutrality has its roots in the concept of "Common Carriage," which dates back to the beginning of the telegraph system. Recent events (the 2003 FCC Triennial Order, the Supreme Court's Brand X decision, the 2005 FCC DSL Order and others) have effectively repealed the laws enforcing network neutrality. Today a minority in Congress is trying to RESTORE the force of law to network neutrality. It is not new at all.
Guest (HOTI3)
I think the government needs to stay away from our internet. The Internet has thrived as a decentralized means of communication. Until now the Internet has been built on a series of relationships between thousands and thousands of network providers big and small. Net-neutrality threatens by attempting to legislate Interconnection
Guest (PLaw)
The way I see it, the ISPs want to essentially defraud their customers by delivering less than what is paid for. To wit, I pay my ISP to "deliver the internet" as quickly (and reliably) as possible given the service level that I've signed up for. To then turn around and charge companies for not delaying the delivery of their content is merely reselling the very same service that I've already paid for.
If the subscriber has paid for 4M/sec, then it seems patently fraudulent to deliberately throttle the delivery of content from those companies that have paid for the "fast lane" delivery. At minimum, the subscriber should be charged less (i.e. deductions against the subscription fee) for content that's been slowed.
Guest (Jim Hayes)
Running video on an IP network makes about as much sense as running Etherent on an ATM network - an idea tried and abandoned 15 years ago. When is someone going to offer an efficient solution to delivering video on our fiber backbones without trying to force a square peg into a round hole?
Guest (Akinboni akinola)
Very good observation! Thought it has something to do with short term memory or a way to create hype for investors.
Guest (Menoch)
Like I said, keep your round/square holes (and the Druids who force them) off the peoples' internet. Let the free market decide by the people choosing or not choosing the internet's future. Anything else is 1984! So, how many fingers am I holding up, Golodh?
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (LinuxUser)
BlackMaiL
Sounds like blackmail, if you ask me.If you do not pay up then little or no access to your site. People already pay by choosing paying for dsl vs. dailup vs. T1 line.
Reply
Guest (MEnoch)
Toll Road pr Free Market?
Are the Status Quo-ers merely anti-Innovation Clintonistas demanding Big Brother intervention of Capitalism? Let the Free market choose how business evolves.
Reply
Guest (Golodh)
Net neutrality is in the public interest
It was only a matter of time before someone would say: "Let the market sort it all out".
Only the market only optimises what's priced, nothing else. The issue here is the type of internet we get, and that's subject to a different market. The kind of market where our votes and our opinions are currency to be precise.
Reply
Guest (Runover)
Free market
How free is the market when controlled by a few monied interests? Voting with your dollars will barely give you a squeak, much less a say in an oligarchy.
Reply
Guest (Joe)
Toll Road Chosen By Congress
Ludicrous. It's not a free market when lobbyists write the rules.
Reply
Guest (lux et libertas)
Service Providers Seek Regulation, Not Free Markets
If free markets were the issue, then service providers wouldn't be lobbying congress for regulation. Their activities are the exact opposite of promoting free markets. There is no shortage of network capacity. If it becomes an issue in the future from increased demand, price, or supply will necessarily increase. I don't think anyone argues the internet does not serve as a public good. This issue isn't about markets, it's about attempted monopolism & control, taking a resource that allows low barriers to market entry for innovators, and attempting to force economies of scale. The innovators, and markets, are the ultimate losers.
Reply