Network Neutrality: a two part primer

As Obama takes office, network neutrality likely will take a back seat to more pressing issues, like a sinking economy and the upcoming (I hope) transition to digital television. But the appointment of a new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman may elevate the issue once again. Rumor has it that Barack Obama will appoint Julius Genachowski to the role. Genachowski went to Harvard Law School and has worked for several Internet companies, including Expedia and Hotels.com . He's a strong choice: he'll bring both intellect and business experience to the administration. From reading Obama's Technology and Innovation Plan, to which Genachowski contributed, one gets the impression that the new FCC head comes out strongly in favor of network neutrality.

However, I hope Genachowski contemplates network neutrality carefully before pursuing any regulation, because it's a technically complex and poorly defined issue that leaves much room for legislative missteps. Network neutrality is essentially an umbrella phrase that takes on a different meaning depending on the context. The definition from Wikipedia is indicative of this vagueness: “network neutrality is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams .”

Through this post, I hope to clarify the network neutrality debate by decomposing the issue into four distinct components and analyzing each piece.

Free speech

Some argue that free speech necessitates network neutrality. Free speech advocates fear that broadband carriers or, more likely, the state will filter online content based on political or moral ideology. China does this now by blocking access to politically sensitive websites. While I agree that information should flow freely and unfettered from the internet (while taking reasonable precautions against material such as child pornography), I do not agree that free speech should drive the network neutrality debate. The suppression of free speech is an unrelated but legitimate cause for concern. But, in reality, no company or government entity could get away with this restrictive behavior within the US, as the public would react strongly and swiftly against such actions.

Open access data networks

Net neutrality also refers to open access data networks, though less frequently. For example, during the auction for the 700Mhz wireless spectrum (previously occupied by analog television signals), the FCC stipulated that whoever owns block C must allow any hardware device capable of supporting the appropriate protocols to connect to the wireless data network. Block C will support any compliant hardware, leaving consumers with more choice and freeing hardware makers from the restrictions of the carriers. I rather like this requirement because I hate how carriers (ahem, Verizon) restrict consumers to use certain cell phones on their cellular networks. Again, this aspect is important but unrelated to the core net neutrality debate and is more of a side discussion.

Restricting services or content from a competitor

Net neutrality proponents argue (and I agree) that the law should prevent broadband carriers from using their market position as Internet Service Providers to discriminate against competing applications or content. For example, Comcast would violate the spirit of net neutrality by developing a new weather service, and suddenly blocking access to weather.com. Again, in the presence of competition, a major carrier could not get away with this type of behavior. Customers would drop service quickly knowing that the ISP provided access to a walled garden instead of the Internet. But this is a straw man argument: few opponents of network neutrality would argue that carriers should exploit their position as providers to block a competitor’s service or product. More likely, a carrier would degrade a competitor’s service surreptitiously by slowing the data transmission. (more on this in the next post.)

In the next post, we’ll get to the true meat of the net neutrality debate: Tiered Service and Quality of Service. This is an important distinction with large repercussions in business and politics. I’ll explain these terms in more detail in the next post. Stay Tuned!