The Internet has always, in one way or another, had a great deal to do with money. Reaching back to its conception, people have been given a choice of how quickly they wanted their Internet connection to be, based primarily on the amount of money they were willing to spend. At the same time, though, all users have been granted access to the same sites, regardless of how much they were willing to shell out, because the Internet has been “neutral.”
But that pure equation could be changing.
If some of the largest communication companies in the nation have their way, the Internet as we know it could soon go the way of the Beta cassette. Proposing new road blocks and toll booths on the information super-highway, these companies are lobbying for a new era of the Internet; an era in which the internet is no longer free to explore, but private property.
This new breed of Internet could be similar to the cable system of television, with different Internet site access levels that depend on how much you pay. It would create a much smoother ride for some, while turning the Internet into a traffic jam, already-late-to-work disaster for others.
Network neutrality, more an idea than a rule, has become a reality on the Internet through the operation of all sites at the same speed, bandwidth, and connection quality, regardless of how big or small they are. Although the Internet as we know it today operates under this principle, other Internet systems meant for businesses, international companies, and even the military, do not.
When the World Wide Web was just getting started, the principle that all sites should be accessible to the public was its guiding force. “The framers of the Internet, like the framers of the Constitution, had a particular set of contextual problems in mind during the initial design and implementation,” explains Richard Lesniak, the University at Buffalo’s Director of Academic Services. “The design of the Internet was similar in function to the design of the national superhighway system: lots of high-speed routes between destinations where the participating vehicles all have equal right to use any lane with whatever payload at any time.”
Entrenched as a mainstay of the Internet because of the government’s laissez-faire approach to the web, network neutrality has only continued to guide the net’s development through a gentleman’s agreement. But without any formal declaration to adequately protect it, network neutrality is in danger of being replaced with a new status quo if the communications conglomerates that control a large part of the Internet’s distribution are allowed to restructure the whole system.
Although the façade of a non-neutral net is purely theoretical, major communications companies and Internet providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are intent on restructuring the web. One model, similar to the cable system used for television, would delineate access between each website based on how much their users paid, allowing access to as many websites and programs as people had paid for.
Despite some sites remaining open to all users as long as they had a computer and an Internet connection, these sites would suffer from a reduction in the amount of users who could access them at one time, slower file transfers, and in the case of P2P communication sites, inferior voice and video quality.
“If I pay for a premium service from a telecommunications vendor, like Verizon, should I be given guaranteed quality of service, i.e. my message gets delivered before your message?” Professor Lesniak questions. “And should a Verizon customer’s traffic be accelerated while a Sympatico [a Canadian Internet service provider] customer’s traffic is intentionally delayed?”
Adhering to the adage of “To the victor belong the spoils,” what is clear about a non-neutral net is that the upgraded or premium sites would receive the benefits garnished from the basic ones, making Internet quality directly proportional to how much people are wiling to pay.
“Interestingly enough, universities and research institutions built their own ‘new Internet’ beginning back in 1997, since the ‘commercial’ Internet, or I1, was clogged with ecommerce, file sharing, [and] porn,” says Lesniak. “The Internet 2 was designed to link these institutions for pure traffic related to research, academic discourse, instrument sharing, etc. This was not a net neutral network, since it [was] still restricted to members only.”
Responding to petitions and the concerns of their constituents, efforts have already been launched in both the House and the Senate concerning net neutrality. Many congressmen are trying to make sure that net neutrality will continue to be included in the Internet’s future.
Last spring, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 was passed in the House. Dealing primarily with video providers, the bill briefly addressed network neutrality and municipal broadband. Unfortunately for neutrality advocates, an amendment to the bill, the “Network Neutrality Act of 2006,” which would have made much stricter provisions for net neutrality, was defeated in committee 22-34.
Also, the Communication, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 was defeated before it could even reach the floor, this time by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation. The amendment proposed an FCC investigation into the abusive business practices on the Internet as well as safeguards against disproportionate fees and blocking user access to sites, and was voted down by 7-15 vote. For some, it still remains unclear why so many Senators would oppose an investigation or such regulations.
The remarks of Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), one of the committee’s members, have led some to believe the problem is ignorance. Stevens has been lambasted both online and on The Daily Show for his remarks on the aforementioned amendment, in which he referred to the Internet as “a system of tubes” and erroneously used the term “Internet” when it was clear he meant email. Regardless of the Senator’s fuzzy conceptualization of the Internet, or computers in general, many people, such as Network Administrator for Sub-Board I, John Mansfield, wonder whether legislation is the best route to net neutrality.
“The people who are trying to make these changes don’t know enough about the Internet,” says Mansfield. “In order for the Senate to vote on an issue like this, they first need to have the technical prowess to fully comprehend the issue.”
Perhaps Senator Stevens’ remarks about the Internet being a system of tubes was not as far off the mark as it would seem. In an interview on wnymedia.net, Edward Whitacre, CEO of SCB Communications, an Internet provider, used the same imagery a year earlier in an attempt to justify why people should have to pay for using the Internet.
“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,” said Whitacre. “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?”
However, not all companies agree with Whitacre’s sentiments. Some of the biggest sites on the Internet are rallying behind net neutrality and its guiding principles. In a recent letter to the U.S. Senate, the Presidents, CEOs, and founders of some of the Internet’s most visited sites, such as Amazon, eBay, Google, and Yahoo!, wrote that they, “Support the continued growth of the Internet as an open, non-discriminatory, and global platform for communications and innovation,” adding that, “Tailored, effective legislative safeguards to preserve net neutrality are essential to achieving this goal.”
Putting any altruistic intentions they may have aside, there is no question that the largest sites on the Internet could sustain substantial losses from a non-neutral network. Relying on their Internet providers for a rapid transfer of information and continuous access to their sites, search engines and online stores’ profits are measured by how many hits they have and how many transactions they conduct. Any decrease in these numbers would be felt in the form of reduced profits, blurring the line between ideals and economics. Many believe their cause will be a hard sell, though.
“The grassroots movements say that they want to prevent censorship, and the big corporations will agree,” says Mansfield, “but ultimately, all the big companies care about is how much money they make.”
Although it is clear that the ensuing debate over net neutrality is predicated upon money rather than on political or moral ideals, there is no silver bullet solution to the problem. With so many aspects of our daily lives revolving around the Internet, both websites and users will undoubtedly feel any change in the way it operates. Whether the government will get more involved on either side of the debate is hard to say, but it might be time to start preparing for the new Internet.
