Net neutrality as a foundational principle of democratic internet access

¶ … Justifications & Action Plan

Net neutrality is the principle that internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the internet. Net neutrality is also about equal access to the internet. The concept of net neutrality began in 1999 when the technology company, Cisco, developed and introduced to the market a brand new kind of router (Ganley & Allgrove, 2006). This router was unique because it permitted network operators to inspect data packets as they flowed through networks (Ganley & Allgrove, 2006). The ability to inspect the data packets also meant that operators had the capacity to grant or deny access to the network based on preference. Although the internet remains open, large cable and telecommunications companies that own broadband networks in the U.S. have proposed the replacement of the open internet with a system where the large providers can pick and choose which websites will operate in their new "closed" networks. In this world, special access charges will be levied on internet content providers as well as consumers. There are two sides to the debate on net neutrality (Yoo, 2005). On the one hand operators such as Verizon and AT&T, assert that growing demands associated with the internet necessitates a level of investment that can only be realized through the commercialization of the internet. At the other end of the spectrum it is argued that the issue of net neutrality is a more complex situation. Opponents of commercialization are content and service providers such as Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon and Google. Many of these groups assert that access tiering is a threat to the fundamental values of purpose of the internet. The analysis that follows will demonstrate that net neutrality a foundational aspect of the internet and democratic society that if abandoned will have devastating consequences. There are three primary reasons why net neutrality is needed. These three reasons include unrestricted access to information, to prevent access charges and to discourage a duopoly from forming amongst a few large companies.

Introduction

Net Neutrality within the context of public policy has been a topic of a great deal of debate for many years. There are several opinions concerning the concept of net neutrality and the place that it has in shaping public policy. The purpose of this discussion is to present both sides of the argument as it pertains to net neutrality. However, the analysis will demonstrate that net neutrality a foundational aspect of the internet and democratic society that if abandoned will have devastating consequences.

Background: Net Neutrality

The concept of net neutrality began in 1999 when the technology company, Cisco, developed and introduced to the market a brand new kind of router (Ganley & Allgrove, 2006). This router was unique because it permitted network operators to inspect data packets as they flowed through networks (Ganley & Allgrove, 2006). In essence, the new routers allowed operators to allow or deny certain packets from flowing through their networks. Basically, this technology and similar routers that have been developed in recent years allow operators to determine the manner in which data packets are handled for policy or commercial reasons as opposed to network performance reasons (Ganley & Allgrove, 2006). For instance, when packets are from a known or preferred source they can be approved by the operator and packets that are not preferred can be blocked or not given priority (Ganley & Allgrove, 2006).

In addition to the inspection of data packets, "discrimination can also be built into the routing algorithm, which decides where a packet should be forwarded next (Peha, 2007)." The author explains that in some instances packets are sent over the fastest and most reliable path while other packets are sent over slower and less reliable paths. In addition some packets that are deemed undesirable may encounter "black-hole routing," which is the same as completely dropping or ignoring the packet altogether (Peha, 2007). For instance, on occasions where there are many different destinations preferred packets may be sent through servers with the shortest lines. In addition, in some cases, packets are sent to a destination that is inconsistent with the destination that is requested by the sender (Peha, 2007). This tactic is known as redirection. Redirection can occur when a user tries to connect to a server that is no longer operating and the network redirects the packets to another server (Peha, 2007).

The author further explains that in some instances, policies involving net neutrality have had prioritization as a primary focus. In addition, it is apparent the manner in which prioritization is used within the context of algorithms and traffic control. The author points out, however, that in some cases there is discrimination that occurs when prioritization is not apparent. For instance, those networks that want to discriminate can do so by supplying different channels based on the type of traffic flowing over the network. When this is done the preferred of traffic "may be sent over a lightly used wavelength in a fiber optic cable, while other traffic goes over a heavily used wavelength. The channel separation can also be logical instead of physical (Peha, 2007)." The author further explains that the preferred traffic can be transmitted over an independent virtual local area network (VLAN). The information from the preferred traffic can also be sent over a separate service flow in a cable system which functions as an aspect of Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) standard (Peha, 2007).. This is important to point out because internet traffic travels over the same physical channel, however, some logical channels have a higher priority when resources are limited than other logical channels (Peha, 2007).

Regardless of how it is done, the ability to approve or deny data packets on a network is known as access tiering, and this concept is at the center of the debate concerning net neutrality. The author further explains that

"The ability to handle data on different network tiers has ignited a high-profile debate in the United States about whether or not operators should be allowed to discriminate between data packets and, therefore, whether regulatory intervention is needed to constrain how operators run their networks. This debate has prompted many to reconsider what public interest values are promoted by a "non-discriminatory" or "neutral" Internet and whether access tiering threatens that public interest. Importantly, the net neutrality debate is one which is now gaining traction in Europe. It is a debate which takes place in the context of various recent episodes that raise similar policy questions. Episodes such as Yahoo!'s dealings with the French courts on the question of the sale of Nazi memorabilia, Google's forays into China and the debate about who should control ICANN. These episodes force governments, and society, to confront the question of how and whether the Internet should be regulated (Ganley & Allgrove, 2006)."

Basically, Net neutrality is the principle that internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the internet. Net neutrality is also about equal access to the internet. Broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Today, net neutrality is essential to our society. It is the basis of democracy, by which the internet has always been governed by a regulatory regime based on principles of openness and non-discrimination.

Problem Statement

Large cable and telecommunications companies that own broadband networks in the U.S. have proposed the replacement of the open internet with a system where the large providers can pick and choose which websites will operate in their new "closed" networks. In this world, special access charges will be levied on internet content providers as well as consumers. Content and services are what drive broadband internet access adoption. Consumers who subscribe to broadband do so primarily in order to be able to use these innovative new services and to get access to interesting and information-rich content. Allowing the duopoly of cable companies and telecommunications companies to make high-speed internet access a "toll road" will slow the adoption of broadband, limit Americans' access to important information and tools, and damage the leading role that the United States plays in technological innovation goes against basic democratic values. Proponents of net neutrality see the government's role in ensuring that the "open access" net neutrality principle is respected. Critics of the "open access" net neutrality, meanwhile insist regulation is unnecessary and is likely to hinder broadband network development.

Significance of the Problem

The issue of net neutrality is significant because it calls into question some of the rudimentary principles upon which this nation was founded. One of these fundamental principles is the freedom of information. Thomas Jefferson, one of our nation's founders, believed that people should have access to all the information available so that they can make their own informed decisions. How can people make informed decisions if they do not have access to all the information? Access tiering can be viewed as a form of censorship even if the intention of such a system is not to censor information. For this reason alone net neutrality should be encouraged. In addition to the problem of restrictive nature of access tiering within a democratic society, such a system is problematic because it is inconsistent with America's image as a leader in the field of technology.

Argument

Opponents to Net Neutrality

For the most part, there are two sides to the debate on net neutrality (Yoo, 2005). On the one hand operators such as Verizon and AT&T, assert that growing demands associated with the internet necessitates a level of investment that can only be realized through the commercialization of the internet. Operators also assert that the commercialization must 'involve the ability to implement a "user pays" model for the use of their networks and, hence, the Internet; those who make high use of and profit from the Internet, should, the operators say, pay for that use (Ganley & Allgrove, 2006)." In other words, those that oppose net neutrality argue that the internet is changing and policies that govern pricing must also change. Opponents also argue that net neutrality must be abandoned so that they best quality service can be delivered to internet users. They believe that the absence of net neutrality will lead to an improvement in the information and services offered via the internet.

Proponents of Net Neutrality

At the other end of the spectrum it is argued that the issue of net neutrality is a more complex situation. Opponents of commercialization are content and service providers such as Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon and Google. Many of these groups assert that access tiering is a threat to the fundamental values of purpose of the internet. As such they believe that net neutrality should be embraced. In addition, those that believe that net neutrality serves an important purpose in maintaining a healthy democracy. They insist that there will be unintended consequences associated with the implementation of a policy that abandons net neutrality.

Now that an understanding of the positions that shape this debate have been presented, the discussion will focus on why net neutrality is needed. The analysis will also focus on why critics of net neutrality are incorrect in their assessments.

Why Net Neutrality is needed

There are three primary reasons why net neutrality is needed. These three reasons include unrestricted access to information, to prevent access charges and to discourage a duopoly from forming amongst a few large companies. In addition, restricted internet access may restrict the growth of broadband subscriptions and even wireless subscriptions in some instances. Restricting such growth will add to the technology gaps that already exist between those who can afford access to the internet and those who do not. Each of the aforementioned factors will be explored in the paragraphs to follow.

Research Consulted

In conducting the research that will follow a plethora of scholarly journal articles and books were consulted. The journals used to research this topic included the International Journal of Communication and I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society. All of the research material were no more than five years old at the time that the research was conducted. Using the newest research possible was vitally important to formulating an opinion concerning the issue of net neutrality.

Research Methods Applied

A secondary research method was carried out for the purposes of this discussion. Secondary research methods rely on already published materials to form the basis of an argument or to draw conclusions. The secondary research method was chosen because it was most suitable and provided the widest range of information available on the topic of net neutrality.

Specific Findings & Analysis

Access Charges

Another major reason why net neutrality should be adopted is the issue of additional access charges. According to Hahn and Walsten (2006) the backbone of the internet is still mostly unregulated. The authors contend that the ability of the internet to function is dependent on a large number of networks working together to provide internet service to end users. Those that are charged with operating the network develop interconnection prices based on market negotiations. For instance, "Interconnecting network operators that cover comparable geographic areas and send similar amounts of Internet traffic out of their networks relative to the amount of Internet traffic they receive often carry each other's data for no charge. Providers with imbalanced traffic -- for example, a web-hosting firm that primarily sends data out but receives very little -- typically pay backbone operators to connect to their networks (Hahn and Walsten (2006)."

Those who oppose net neutrality assert that one of the reasons for access tiering is to ensure that networks run as optimally as possible. They assert that transferring the broad range of information available on the internet to end users can be costly. Marsden (2007) further explains that

"Some content and network owners' desire to be recompensed for provision of local loop upgrades and has led to an animated debate in the United States. Note that content providers pay for their traffic to be carried by backbone ISPs, on a best effort basis, and the argument is about ISPs wishing to increase those payments as a result of either enhancing or blocking service, on a mandatory or opt-in basis (clearly a mandatory blocking service for those refusing to pay an extra toll is the most capricious of these possibilities…)(Marsden, 2007 419)."

The most common cause for access charges under a plan that is not neutral will affect companies such as Google. According to Hahn and Walsten (2006) companies that provide broadband such as Verizon and AT&T will charge content providers such as Google additional fees for sending information over their networks. In addition some providers of broadband have asserted that the internet needs a fast lane for certain sites that need high bandwidth such as You Tube.

According to Economides (2008), the CEO of AT&T wants to do away with the concept of net neutrality as it relates to the pricing structure for content providers (Economides, 2008). The current structure does not make any distinction between information packets based on the services being provided through the content. In addition there is no price distinction made based on who is uploading or downloading the information (Economides, 2008). This type of pricing structure has always been the standard for the industry. The author further explains that "Presently, an information packet used for VOIPs, email, images, or video is priced equally as a part of the large number of packets that correspond to the subscription services of the originating and terminating ISPs (Economides, 2008)."

The companies that offer broadband service such as AT&T and Verizon, want to replace net neutrality with a pricing schedule that forces the end user to pay for transmission service and the party that sends the transmission also has to ay a fee for providing the end use with the content (Economides, 2008). The author continues,

"An access network, for example AT&T, wants to charge fees to an originating party even when the originating party does not connect to the Internet using AT&T and therefore does not have any contractual relationship with AT&T. Access network operators have also reserved the right to charge differently based on the identity of the provider even for the same type of packets; for example, an ISP may charge Google more than Yahoo for the same transmission. The proposed Internet model, without "net neutrality," would more closely mirror the traditional pre-Internet telecommunications model in which customers pay per service. This would be a very sharp departure from the way the Internet was designed to operate and how it has run since its inception (that is, pricing without reference to particular services or functions of the transmitted information packets) (Economides, 2008 213).

The author further insists that the desire to impose a new pricing structure is due to the increased use of video services presented by AT&T and Verizon. In the long run it is feared that the addition of these services will slow down broadband service if it continues to be sold in a manner that is net neutral. Because this is the case both Verizon and AT & T. want to establish

"pricing differentiation so that consumers will buy the content generated by their service provider rather than the content offered by the service provider's competitors. However, broadband access providers have not committed to any restriction on their ability to extract additional surplus from their consumers and content or application providers. In addition, broadband access providers have not committed to restrictions on the use of price discrimination instruments (Economides, 2008 213)."

The author further explains that in recent years, lobbyists have proposed congressional bills that have as an objective the legalization so of the capacity of an access provider to enforce any type of price discrimination structure it wants. At the current time, residential consumers pay more than $20 billion per year for broadband Internet access (Economides, 2008). The author explains that "The combination of the consumers' surplus and the profits generated by Internet distributed complementary applications and Internet-distributed content are a very large multiple of the current cost of residential broadband service (Economides, 2008 216).." With this understood, any altering of the fee structure desired by broadband providers may seriously agitate the current delivery of wealth between content, applications, and transmission service providers (Economides, 2008 216).

If networks continue to encourage the use of access tiering consumers are going to pay the ultimate price. Some forms of internet access are already quite expensive. Increasing the amount of money that consumers have to spend to get access to the internet could be extremely detrimental to internet service providers. The widespread use of broadband and now wireless connections has meant that more people are on the internet than ever before. Any increase in cost could discourage the use of the internet, particularly for home users. This would be a setback in the shrinking of the technology gap that exists in America.

Duopoly

The final reason why net neutrality should be embrace is the threat of duopoly as it pertains to internet access I general and broadband access in particular. Advocates of net neutrality fear that if broadband providers are allowed to use more access tiering a strong duopoly might form. At the current time there are only a few large broadband providers and further regulation may lead to even fewer providers. Peha, (2007) explains that,

"competition for consumer access to the Internet has been declining. After all, if there were rigorous competition, network operators who use discrimination to harm consumers or fail to use discrimination to benefit consumers would lose customers to their rivals. Dial-up access was naturally competitive, but consumers have been switching to broadband, and most consumers currently have one or perhaps two last-mile broadband providers from which to choose. At the same time, attempts to encourage competition over the same physical connection have largely subsided in the U.S. Without competition, if there are discriminatory practices that increase carrier profits but harm consumers, it may take regulation or the threat of regulation to deter these practices. At this point, few people are seriously advocating complete common carrier regulation of these monopoly and duopoly markets as this could limit innovation and discourage the entry of new competitors. However, under the banner of network neutrality, policymakers could attempt to limit some discriminatory practices as long as they believe the regulation will do less damage than the discrimination would (Peha, 2007)."

Duopoly is particularly problematic within the context of the internet because it is responsible for the dissemination of information. In some instances the internet is the only place where certain types of information can be found. Because this is the case, it is vitally important that broadband providers do not have so much control over the information that is available over the internet. In addition, one or two large companies dominating the industry means that the choices for consumers will be limited. The lack of competition will lead to a decrease in the quality of service that is offered.

Recommendations, Justifications & Action Plan

Overall the research indicates that net neutrality is a complicated and complex issue. On the one hand, the internet was founded on a concept that allowed to free flow of information. This free flow of all types of information led to new innovations and a form of communication that has transformed the world. In a sense the internet has made everyone connected to it a citizen of the world. People who have never met can now exchange ideas electronically. The internet has created billionaires and millionaires throughout the word, due in large part to open nature of this medium.

With such growth in the internet certain problems have began to arise as it pertains to bandwidth and the ability of network providers to continually offer customers the best service. They argue that net neutrality is costing them money and many large companies such as Google are profiting from the use of the providers property without having to pay for the use of the property. As such the network providers want to also profit from the traffic created by the content providers. Although this idea seems reasonable, the concept of not having net neutrality creates several problems that have to be addressed. The first of these issues is restricting information that end users can receive. Restricting information in a democratic society is problematic for many reasons. The foremost reason being free speech and the right to free expression. Not only do American citizens have these rights but we also have the right to view, read and respond to the free speech and free expressions of others. The absence of net neutrality may create a situation in which certain content is blocked and users do not have access to what they may want to read or listen to on the internet. Such restriction of information is unacceptable in a true democracy. It is therefore recommended that opponents of net neutrality examine the unintended consequences of access tiering and how society may be affected as a result of such a structure.

The other issue addressed was that of access charges. Some companies are proposing a pricing structure be introduced into the currently neutral environments. Basically with this structure Verizon would charge yahoo and Google to send content over Verizon's network. The end user may also have to pay extra to get access to certain content. While it is evident that the information that is currently being sent over the internet is much more sophisticated than it once was and therefore requires a greater mount of bandwidth, charging companies and end users for these services may prove detrimental in the end. This detriment may be to the end user who may not be able to afford such increases in price. It is therefore recommended that all broadband providers consider some alternatives to charging extra fees, particularly if such fees are going to be passed on to consumers.

The final issue discussed was that of duopoly. At the current time there are few providers of broadband and the dissolving of net neutrality may cause the demise of even more companies as a result of price increases. The threat of duopoly or even a monopoly is another reason why net neutrality is vitally important. Therefore it is recommended that policy makers take into consideration the impact of access tiering on the broadband industry and the impact that certain regulations will have on consumers and their ability to get access to the internet.

Overall, the recommendation is the development of a policy that is conducive to not restricting the free flow of information while still adequately compensating companies for the use of their resources. The internet is changing a great deal and their must be a concerted effort to address these changes without stripping the internet of the foundation that has made it such a popular conduit for businesses and communication. Policy makers must find a compromise that meets the needs of network providers and content providers. In addition, the policy must ensure that end users have access to information without having to pay significant fees. The policy must not create a situation in which some segment of the population do not have access to the internet because of the cost. This would serve to undermine the strides that have been made in closing the technology gap between the rich and the poor.

Justifications

The desire for Net Neutrality is quite simply based on the premises afforded us via the Constitution of the United States. The constitution guarantees the right of free speech and expression. Furthermore is forbids censorship. The founders understood the importance of the citizenry having access to information that is unfiltered. The consequences of abandoning net neutrality may lead to censorship of the information that is available on the internet. Therefore any effort to advocate for net neutrality is justified based on the consequences of not doing so.

Action Plan

Lobbyists for Net Neutrality should make their positions clear to policy makers as it pertains to the dangers of having an internet that is not neutral. The freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to democratic society and it is the foundation upon which the internet was built. Proponents of net neutrality can use the example of radio to explain the detriment that can be caused when monopolies and duopolies form within the sphere of the media.

Consumers should also be made aware of the push for access tiering amongst broadband providers (Sidak, 2006). End users who may have to pay extra fees may prove to be some of the best advocates for net neutrality. Overall, there must be a concerted effort to make the public and everyone who will be affected by the absence of net neutrality aware of the impact that an access tiered structure will have on their ability to access information on the internet.

Conclusion

The research presented suggest that there are some serious disadvantages associated with access tiering. These three disadvantages include the restriction of information, access charges for content providers and duopoly. The analysis asserts that net neutrality is needed to ensure that users have access to the information that they desire to have.

The major weakness associated with advocacy of net neutrality is the very real problem of bandwidth availability and content providers sending rich content over networks that do not belong to them. It seems unfair that the providers of broadband have to take on the costs associated with this issue. However, the research indicates that the internet should and must remain neutral because any other structure will lead to duopoly, increased access fees and restricted access to information. In short critics of net neutrality are wrong in their assessment of policies that promote net neutrality, because the absence of net neutrality changes the very nature upon which the internet was built and has thrived upon for so many years.