IBJOpinion

ALTOM: How long will our 'Net neutrality last?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Tim Altom

Cable giant Comcast has fanned a typical smoldering Internet grumble-fest into a major screaming match, complete with a lawsuit and cries for federal intervention. The outcome may affect how much it costs you and me to do business across the ’Net.

A large number of Americans depends on Comcast for Internet connection. Comcast is an Internet service provider, or ISP. Historically, ISPs considered themselves neutral conveyors of Internet “packets” of information. All Internet traffic travels in packets. The big spreadsheet you attached to an e-mail the other day went out as packets, not as a single file. It joined billions of other packets on the massive ’Net highway in one of mankind’s biggest yet most efficiently designed traffic jams. You can be a captain of industry, or just captain of the volleyball team. Either way, your packets mingle democratically, neither’s getting precedence over the other.

This is known as “’Net neutrality,” and there are a great many Internet gurus who are intent on keeping it neutral, both for ideological reasons and to control prices, so ISPs can’t set up tiered systems of packet prioritization that penalize customers who pay less, by sidelining their packets.

In addition, ’Net neutralists fear that a tiered system would lead to actual censorship by the few big companies that still provide connectivity. Because ISPs control the Internet choke points for so many users, it’s possible they could become the ’Net’s arbiters of good taste, legality and morality. ’Net neutralists have petitioned the federal government for legislation to protect neutrality.

Neutralists have feuded for years with others who contend that legally locking down neutrality will stifle innovations that could be based on discrimination, solutions that could theoretically boost speeds without sacrificing anyone’s quality of service. To date, neither side has gained much traction in the argument, mostly because it seemed moot. No ISP had seriously interfered with anyone’s packets.

Then, in 2007, Comcast was found to be blocking its users’ access to a file-sharing network known as “BitTorrent.” BitTorrent allows users to share personal files, but its major use is to trade copyrighted music and video. In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission slapped Comcast’s wrist, while indignant users lined up to sue the company.

The aggrieved users noted that Comcast was hardly neutral in its decision-making, as it had recently purchased NBC Universal, which holds many of the very copyrights Comcast was supposedly defending only as a good corporate citizen. That purchase immediately removed Comcast from being an impartial conduit and gave it a vested interest in packet discrimination. They claimed Comcast wasn’t being a good citizen anymore. It was being a monopolist.

The result wasn’t what the ’Net neutralists wanted. Comcast appealed the FCC’s citation and won. The appeals court noted that, despite repeated submission of bills in Congress, the government had yet to grant the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. And while Comcast ended the lawsuits by setting aside millions for a class-action settlement, the company inserted a clause into the agreement a plaintiff had to sign. That clause required the plaintiff to swear an affidavit that he had not been downloading illegal materials. For a settlement of $16, it hardly seemed worth it to many.

It’s certain that Comcast will be able to dictate much of its Internet traffic in the future, because there is no neutrality requirement. And it’s also certain Comcast will continue to be one of the few options in broadband that many Americans have. But will Comcast take another, even less savory, step and create a tiered system of usage across its broadband network, effectively renting it to the highest bidders? That could hit a good many businessfolk in the wallet.

It’s possible, but if it did, Comcast would be inviting the masses to retaliate through Congress. Comcast slid out of its noose last time by only the slimmest of technicalities, that the FCC had overstepped its authority. One piece of legislation is all it would take to change that.

Right now, even if Comcast is censoring packets, it’s doing so ostensibly only to prevent piracy. It would be awkward for its customers to ask Congress to make Comcast let them download “Batman Returns” at will. But if Comcast were to begin constructing an expensive tiered system for packet access, cash-strapped constituents would have a stronger case. I would think Comcast might count itself lucky to be where it is, with no more regulatory stripes on its back.

The issue of Comcast’s conflict of interest is another matter entirely, and will likely also be eventually hashed out in Washington. As with so much in our brave new world, nobody yet knows where the limits will be for ISPs. For the time being, I will stick with my high-speed phone line. At least the phone company hasn’t bought a TV network yet.•

__________

Altom is an independent local technology consultant. His column appears every other week. He can be reached at taltom@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Who watches the watchers
    Any all-encompassing approach to regulation based on an abstraction like "neutrality" will lead to no good.

    The message is highly muddled anyway. The problem with the way neutrality is being demagogued is that it is being sold to some audiences as a way for the "good guys" in government to control "bad speech" and "bad people" while other audiences get the populist song and dance about corporate greed, blah, blah, blah. If any of this opens the door for regulation of the content of speech, then I will be happy to take my chances with leaving the private sector in charge. Every. Single. Time.

    And another thing: Demonizing behavior by attributing it to the pursuit of "mere profit" always has struck me as weak and perhaps based in part on latent envy. Far better for the person minding the chokepoint to do so for mere profit rather than to use control of a chokepoint to accumulate political power, and the right to open that choke point only to political favorites.
  • awesome
    Great description of the issue without being biased in either direction. Good work!
  • where to begin
    Do not read this article, it will only succeed in making you dumb. Net neutrality is the way for government to finally get its hands in the most free medium we the people have ever owned and big businesses is helping them get there in return for locking in today's leaders and thwart any attempt by an upstart to topple them. Don't believe, then explain why Google, E-Bay and Amazon - the world's largest ad agency, flea market and catalog are paying millions to lobby for its passage.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
ADVERTISEMENT