 Jedi Master... err... President Obama is fighting for net neutrality, while the Republicans are opposing him. (Source: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The battle over whether internet bandwidth will be neutral or relegated into internet "slow" and "fast" lanes is becoming heated
Internet service providers have long
fantasized about charging content providers for the use of "fast"
traffic lanes and punishing those who don't pay by relegating them to
internet "slow" lanes. Faced with overwhelming public
disapproval of such a policy, and pressure from industry giants like
Microsoft and Google, the ISPs backed down somewhat. However,
as some ISPs continue to plot the eventual deployment of such a plan,
an equally heated debate is going on in government over whether
legislation and/or rules should be put in place to guarantee that the
net remains "neutral" and does not monetize content
speeds.
On one side are the Democrats. President Barack
Obama is a strong
supporter of net neutrality, arguing it's essential for the
“little guy” web startups to have a chance against bigger
players. The Democrats have lobbyist backing, with Google,
and others investing much to try to push through net neutrality
legislation. And the culmination of these efforts was FCC
Chairman Julius Genachowski's proposal
of net neutrality rules yesterday.
The new rules
would restrict carriers from discriminating against content or
applications (e.g. throttling P2P traffic) and also call for
transparency as a means of ensuring these requirements are met.
Chairman Genachowski calls the measures "fair rules of the road
for companies that control access to the internet."
Some
ISPs oppose
the measure for various reason. Verizon and AT&T has
long kept information on their data network a guarded secret, and the
proposal would force them to air information on their traffic, which
neither company wants. Other companies like Comcast would be
forced to abandon their secret P2P throttling techniques.
Others like Virgin want to charge for fast-lanes and are declaring
net neutrality "a load of bollocks" as Virgin's
CEO puts it.
AT&T encourages the adoption of the
rules, but opposes their application to wireless networks. Jim
Cicconi, the company's top legal affairs man states, "AT&T
has long supported the principle of an open Internet and has
conducted its business accordingly. We were also early
supporters of the FCC's current four broadband principles and their
case-by-case application to wired networks. To the extent that the
chairman seeks to bolster the FCC's legal authority to enforce these
principles, we would support him. We have also indicated publicly
that, despite any compelling evidence of abuses that need correction,
AT&T could also consider endorsing a fifth principle relating to
actions that are unreasonably discriminatory and that cause material
harm. Finally, we have never had concerns with disclosure or
transparency regarding network management decisions so long as such
requirements are reasonable.
"[But] we are concerned,
however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of net
neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive
consumer market in America, wireless services," Cicconi
continued.
While the ISPs have kept their criticism relatively
quiet, Republican think tanks are more vocally opposing the
measures. The telecom industry's majority owners have funded many of these groups
and has also funded lobbyists who are pushing the Republicans to
block any attempt to put net neutrality in the books.
The
Republicans have already launched
an attack to try to kill the net neutrality. Texas
Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has added language to a
funding bill for the Interior Department that will block the FCC from
gaining funds to regulate net neutrality.
The Republicans
succeeded in killing similar net neutrality legislation in 2006 --
but at the time, they had a tight grip on the government that they do
not have today.
At the end of the day, both the Republicans
and Democrats are serving as the voices of greater powers in our
nation's economy. On the one side you have companies like
Google (and their associated think tanks) that profit from
democratization of the internet (which support the Democrats).
And on the other side you have the ISPs (and their associated think
tanks) that support the creation of an internet oligarchy, with
tiered levels of privilege and opportunity (supported by the
Republicans) and only a select elite at the fast traffic tier.
Only time will tell which of these significant powers will triumph.
"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh
|
Most Popular ArticlesWindows 8 Dates Leaked, Windows 7 Hits 10 Percent Market Share, IE 8 Now Top Browser February 3, 2010, 9:05 AM Former VP Says Microsoft is "Failing" Despite Windows 7 Profits February 4, 2010, 11:11 AM MIT Creates World's First Computer-Ready Germanium Laser February 5, 2010, 1:20 PM Apple Offers Bounty to Take Yellow IMacs Off UK Owners' Hands February 5, 2010, 10:20 AM Crucial's 6Gbps C300 Hits Stores February 22, Targets Intel February 3, 2010, 12:20 PM
|