|
Net Neutrality Bill Still Needs Some �Tweaking�
TMCnet Associate Editor
It appears that Sen. Wyden’s “Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006,” which he introduced last Thursday, still needs some “tweaking” and will likely see several revisions before (and if) it is adopted.
The Act was drafted in response to mounting pressure from major telecommunications companies - including BellSouth, AT&T and Verizon - for Congress to adopt legislation which would allow for the creation of a two-tiered Internet. What the major carriers want to do is build a second tier which would operate at higher speeds - and then be able to charge service and content providers for express delivery of their data over the second tier. In so doing, the major carriers could guarantee fast delivery of content and services to customers – while at the same time recouping their investments in upgrading their networks.
The idea of charging fees for faster delivery of content and services, however, has turned out to be extremely controversial. Opponents claim that the idea violates the concept of “net neutrality,” which essentially means that all data, once it is out on the Net, is treated equally. Giving network operators the ability to charge, opponents argue, would enable them to prioritize some services and content over other services and content – and that, they say, is simply not fair.
Furthermore, opponents claim that a second “paid” tier could open the door for network operators to block certain content from reaching customers. Yet another fear is that network operators could end up “discriminating” against competitors (or companies which are affiliated with competitors). Opponents also argue that adding a “paid” fast lane would stifle competition, because smaller companies would no longer be able to compete against larger companies which could afford to pay fees for express delivery of their data.
Under the provisions of the Act, also known as the “net neutrality” bill, network operators would be prohibited from engaging in “discriminatory practices” with regard to the delivery of content over their networks. The bill states that network operators "shall not interfere with, block, degrade, alter, modify, impair, or change any bits, content, application or service transmitted over the network of such operator."
But one potential problem with the Act - as drafted - is that it could end up taking away network operators’ ability to adjust their networks. With the advent of “packetized” data (which is used primarily for delivery of voice and video signals), service providers and network operators have gained the ability to “prioritize” certain data. Because voice and video packets eat up a disproportionate share of bandwidth, compared to email and other forms of data, network operators and service providers have taken advantage of their ability to “prioritize” these packets so as to deliver better quality signals to customers, and also to optimize the performance of their networks.
Sen. Wyden’s bill is problematic in that it does not contain language which would enable network operators and service providers to continue to adjust their networks. The bill simply states that they are to “treat all data traveling over or on communications in a non-discriminatory way” – and that they (again) “shall not interfere with, block, degrade, alter, modify, impair, or change any bits, content, application or service transmitted over the network of such operator.” The bill does not say that network operators and service providers can adjust their networks to preserve bandwidth – nor does it say they can prioritize certain signals to achieve this goal.
It appears that in trying to keep the bill as broad as possible, its authors failed to address all of the new challenges to net neutrality which are now coming into play. Perhaps the bill was drafted with the idea that you’re never going to get 100 percent enforceability. It certainly does not offer provisions for proactive enforcement of "net neutrality." In fact, the idea that an organization could even police the Web to uphold “net neutrality” seems far fetched when considering the billions upon billions of voice and video packets which traverse the Internet everyday. There have already been accusastions from service providers that network operators are monkeying around with others' signals.
Under the provisions of the bill, the FCC will play an enforcement role – but only after a complaint has been made.
“Any aggrieved party may submit a written complaint to the Commission seeking a ruling that a network operator has violated a requirement [under the provisions of the bill],” the bill states. The bill requires that a complainant “make a prima facie case” that a network operator has engaged in discriminatory practices – and the network operator bears the burden of proof that no violation took place.
But there is a question as to whether certain degrees of “packet prioritization” will constitute “discriminatory practices.” If the bill allows network operators to adjust and optimize their networks, to what degree can they do this under the proposed legislation? Is just “getting the signal to the customer’s premises” good enough? Or does the signal have to meet a certain level of quality? In the absence of poor signal quality or some other obvious problem, consumers certainly can’t tell whether or not the voice and video signals they are receiving have been properly prioritized.
Here’s an analogy: Most people can’t tell the difference between music played back via the MP3 format and music played back from a CD. Yet most people know that the CD provides a superior format for the delivery of audio signals (it’s just that the human ear can’t detect the difference). But if you went to the store and bought a bunch of CDs, only to learn later that they were bogus copies burned using the MP3 format, you’d feel pretty gypped, wouldn’t you? The voice and video content which is being delivered over the Internet is really no different.
Although the bill does not appear to allow network operators to favor certain packets over others, it does give them the ability to block certain types of content, such as pornography. It also gives them the ability to take “reasonable and non-discriminatory measures to protect subscribers from adware, spyware, viruses, spam … content deemed inappropriate for minors or any other similarly nefarious application or service …” It also gives them the right to “protect the security of the network … if such operator faces serious and irreparable harm …”
Although the bill does not include measures allowing for proactive enforcement of net neutrality, Rich Tehrani, president and group publisher of TMCnet, said he thinks policing the Web for acts of discrimination might be easier than most people think. He said it could be as simple as setting up a few computers in remote locations on the Web which are designated to “keep count” of voice and video packets traversing the network to ensure that they aren’t “spaced too far apart,” indicating that they’ve been delayed, or that they have somehow been tampered with.
“I think it can be done,” he said. “You might not be able to uncover every instance where there was an act of discrimination – but you could certainly uncover it if it was being done on a large scale …”
Patrick Barnard is Associate Editor for TMCnet and a columnist covering the telecom industry. To see more of his articles, please visit Patrick Barnard’s columnist page.
[ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]
|
Find Solutions for Enterprises, SMBs & Service Providers at the INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference and EXPO West, September 16-18, 2008. Los Angeles, California.
