Why Nobody's Neutral on Net Neutrality: Implications for Smalltown, USA
Net
neutrality has become a contentious issue within the media, among
pundits and in Congress, generating an edginess on par with healthcare
reform discussions.
On the face of it, net neutrality is a fairly
simple issue, but beneath the surface complex potential benefits and
competing interests are churning up a lot of turbulence. In particular,
incumbents – the large telecom and cable companies such as AT&T and
Comcast, with existing Internet access services – are not happy.
Recently
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski laid out
six principles that, he believes, will ensure that the Internet remains
a neutral communications medium. “Net neutrality” fundamentally means
that everyone receives equal treatment in accessing and delivering
data, services or applications over the Net.
Genachowski wants these six principles to have the force of law:
- Consumers are entitled to access whatever lawful Internet content they want.
- Consumers are entitled to run whatever applications and services they want, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
- Consumers can connect to networks with whatever legal devices they want, so long as they do not harm the networks.
- Consumers are entitled to competition among networks, applications, services and content providers.
- Service providers are not allowed to discriminate among applications, services and content outside of reasonable network management.
- Service providers must be transparent about the network management practices they use.
Bottomline:
Consumers can get whatever legal content they wish, using whatever
computing devices they want, without fear of service providers’
favoring, or discriminating against, content that flows over the
networks that link to the Internet.
Network operators would
not be able to limit data traffic to companies that are willing to pay
added fees to get their content through (for example: ABC operator
couldn’t limit rural customers’ access just to Facebook because MySpace
and others won’t pay a surcharge ABC wants to levy on content). An
operator couldn’t prohibit applications on the network, such as a local
telemedicine service (because the operator has an exclusive deal to
sell a big-city medical center’s services), or prevent you from using a
BlackBerry (because the operator has an exclusive deal to sell iPhones).
At
its core, the net neutrality debate pits those who believe the Internet
is a channel for open communications against those whose best financial
interests lie in a controlled Internet. Net neutrality’s negative
impact on their ability to do business is often cited as the reason why
the biggest incumbents, and most mid-sized ones, declined to apply for
funding in the first round of federal broadband stimulus grants. (Note
that the primary reason so many rural areas don’t already have
broadband is because incumbents can’t cost justify providing service
here.)
The incumbents complain that companies such as Yahoo and
WebEx are taking a free ride on “their pipes”; thus, the incumbents
argue, they need to be able to charge extra fees to “free-riders,” fees
that net neutrality rules would prohibit. The incumbents are raising
this argument once more in their attack on net-again neutrality
requirements in the stimulus grant rules.
To see the “free-ride”
myth for what it is, consider how those who provide and consume content
will affect the networks of organizations that apply for stimulus
grants.
Grant applicants will (or should) have institutional customers
– like local governments, school districts, and hospitals -- that
transmit and receive huge amounts of data; for this heavy use of the
network they would pay a sufficient price to offset much of an
applicants’ network operating costs. Individual subscribers who live on
YouTube may pay more than people than those who just check their
e-mail. The heavy network users aren’t getting a free ride or harming
operators’ revenue.
Content providers such as Travelocity,
WebMD and applications yet to be born connect to the Internet via other
service providers (imagine the server capacity that Travelocity
requires). They pay big bucks for access, private infrastructure and
others expenses to enable their content to reach subscribers of grant
applicants’ networks. They’re not getting a free ride either, nor are
they impacting grant applicants’ operating costs since local
institutional and premium customers pay for the capacity to receive the
content.
Net neutrality doesn’t change these dynamics. It just
ensures that if Joe’s Local Hardware Emporium and Smallville Data
Storage Co. both want to move 500 gigabits of data through a provider’s
network to the Internet, the provider can’t show favoritism moving
either company’s data. If Smallville is moving 500 gigabits and Rural
Telemed is moving 100 gigs, it’s ok if Smallville pays more, but under
net neutrality the operator cannot arbitrarily slow down RT’s data
traffic because they’re the smaller customer.
Detractors claim
that net neutrality will lead to the demise of investment and
innovation. Incumbents played the death-to-innovation card when they
didn’t submit stimulus proposals. But 2,200 proposals from local
governments and smaller service providers prove plenty of others are
willing to step in with plans to build networks and offer innovative
services without being tripped up by this rule.
The large cellular wireless
providers such as AT&T and Verizon also claim that they should be
exempt from net neutrality. They argue that because wireless capacity –
how much speed you can deliver through a wireless network to be shared
by subscribers - is limited, they need be able to throttle network
content from and to bandwidth hogs. However, a list of 10 communities
I compiled from dozens in the U.S. that have built their own networks
or partnered with private companies reveals some interesting numbers
about wireless networks.
Franklin County, Virginia’s wireless
network gives you a max of 3.5 mega bits per second (mbps) down to
consumers’ computers, 2 mbps up from the computers to the Internet.
Prestonsburg, Kentucky, with its humble city-run WiFi network offers
3.5 mbps. Cambria County, Pennsylvania, offers 15 mbps. Allegany
County, Maryland, offers commercial users up to 100 mbps on its
wireless network.
The large cellular wireless companies worry
about capacity (and thus network neutrality) because the most data
speed their networks offer is less than a third of the slowest among
the community networks listed. These communities don’t worry about
throttling content because their networks’ wireless technology enables
capacity that exceeds subscribers’ need for speed.
Expect the
stimulus program to produce a lot of wireless networks with faster
speeds than cellular networks. Of the 1,130 last-mile proposals for
federal broadband stimulus money, 60% are for wireless networks, many
designed to use technology similar to what the aforementioned
communities are using now.
So don’t let the incumbent PR blitz
fool you. Net neutrality, applied fairly to big and small Internet
service providers is good for consumers, businesses and providers.