Business Journal Op-Ed on Net Neutrality
My latest op-ed is available in this week's print edition of the Triad Business Journal. It's not yet now available online.
--
Word that Bill Gates is stepping down from his day to day responsibilities at Microsoft has made a big splash in recent tech headlines, but the more significant technology story of the moment is getting little play in the news. Even the folks who will be affected by its outcome – and they include anyone who uses the Internet – are mostly unaware of the story.
If you’re unfamiliar with the phrase "network neutrality" you’re not alone. It refers - if it’s possible to provide a concise definition of this highly contentious phrase - to the principle under which networks - think telephone and cable companies - carry information for all Internet content providers without discriminating against specific types of content (for example, video versus text). It’s the sort of low profile, complicated matter that usually appeals only to technologists and policy wonks.
But it became a hot button issue last December when BellSouth CTO William Smith told reporters that BellSouth should be able to charge search engines a premium to have their sites load faster than those of rivals. And that BellSouth should be able to charge voice over IP phone service providers a fee to insure that their service operates at a quality level equal to that of BellSouth’s service.
Timothy Wu, an Internet policy expert and professor at Columbia Law School, calls this as the "Tony Soprano vision of networking." Network carriers can use their pipeline ownership to pick and choose the information they allow to pass, at what rate, and at what cost. This vision is contrary to the way the Internet works now. Users choose online services and content based mostly on their merits, and the network carriers provide transit to those services and content without regard to origin, destination or type.
But after watching the wired world pass them by for so many years, the network carriers see an opportunity for a huge payday. Apparently there’s a better future in establishing tollbooths on the Internet than in innovating or providing services that consumers will willingly pay a premium to access. So the telephone and cable companies have thrown their financial and lobbying weight behind the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, which has passed the House and now awaits debate in the Senate. In its current form, COPE will eliminate the standing principle of network neutrality.
Principle is the operative word. Network neutrality isn’t codified in law, but is instead defined by four broad entitlements granted by the FCC:
- Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
- Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
- Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
- Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
If COPE becomes law, those entitlements will cease to exist.
All of this might seem abstract, or even irrelevant to the average Internet user, but the outcome of the current legislative battle over network neutrality will have significant repercussions for consumers and for our economy. That’s why many technologists, such as "father of the Internet" Vinton Cerf, and high tech companies including Google have lined up alongside consumer and advocacy groups that span the political spectrum to oppose COPE. Among these groups are the Christian Coalition, MoveOn, and the Gun Owners of America - organizations that rarely agree with one another on other issues.
What brings these groups together isn’t the abstract, technical, wonkish aspects of net neutrality, but the issue of trust.
In response to the suggestion that they might engage in anticompetitive behavior - for example, a telephone company might simply block competing voice over IP services from its network - network carriers effectively say, "Trust us." They argue that the marketplace is an effective remedy to this kind of behavior, and strenuously oppose writing protections against anticompetitive activity into law.
Entrepreneurs, consumer protection groups, public advocacy organizations and others who see value in the Internet as a meritocracy are declining to offer that trust. The Internet is a central conduit of communication and commerce - a primary economic playing field - because anyone has so far been able to enter the online marketplace and compete on the merits of ideas, products and services, without negotiating economic barriers that are established by and unique to each carrier.
This has shaped up to be a battle between two visions of the Internet. One is that of established, old-line companies that are often accustomed to near monopoly status, and comfortable with the business model of collecting fees for access to utilities. The other vision is guided by the principle that this utility should continue to be the foundation of a meritocracy, where players prosper according to the value of their ideas and services.
So here’s a question to consider if you’re inclined to think any more about this dry, wonkish issue: Who has the better track record for innovation - the many technology companies that have emerged with the rise of a neutral Internet, or your phone or cable company?
Technorati Tags: net+neutrality
