Case: Organizations: Should Network Neutrality Continue?

Q1. What is network neutrality? Why has the Internet operated under net neutrality up to this point in time?

 Network neutrality is the idea that Internet service providers must allow customers equal access to content and applications regardless of the source or nature of the content. Presently the Internet is indeed neutral: all Internet traffic is treated equally on a first-come, first-serve basis by Internet backbone owners. The Internet is neutral because it was built on phone lines, which are subject to ‘common carriage’ laws. These laws require phone companies to treat all calls and customers equally. They cannot offer extra benefits to customers willing to pay higher premiums for faster or clearer calls, a model knows as tiered service.

Q2. Who’s in favor of network neutrality? Who’s opposed? Why?

Those in favor of network neutrality include organizations like MoveOn.org, the Christian Coalition, the American Library Association, every major consumer group, many bloggers and small businesses, and some large Internet companies like Google and Amazon. Some members of the U.S. Congress also support network neutrality. Vint Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol also favors network neutrality saying that variable access to content would detract from the Internet’s continued ability to thrive. This group argues that the risk of censorship increases when network operators can selectively block or slow access to certain content. Others are concerned about the effect of slower transmission rates on their business models if users can’t download or access content in a speedy fashion. Those who oppose network neutrality include telecommunications and cable companies who want to be able to charge differentiated prices based on the amount of bandwidth consumed by content being delivered over the Internet. Some companies report that 5 percent of their customers use about half the capacity on local lines without paying any more than low-usage customers. They state that metered pricing is “the fairest way” to finance necessary investments in its network infrastructure. Internet service providers point to the upsurge in piracy of copyrighted materials over the Internet as a reason to oppose network neutrality. Comcast reported that illegal file sharing of copyright ted material was consuming 50 percent of its network capacity. The company posits that if network transmission rates were slower for this type of content, users would be less likely to download or access it. Bob Kahn, another co-inventor of the Internet Protocol opposes network neutrality saying that it removes the incentive for network providers to innovate, provide new capabilities, and upgrade to new technology.

3. What would be the impact on individual users, businesses, and government if Internet providers switched to a tiered service model?

Proponents of net neutrality argue that a neutral Internet encourages everyone to innovate without permission from the phone and cable companies or other authorities. A more level playing field spawns countless new businesses. Allowing unrestricted information flow becomes essential to free markets and democracy as commerce and society increasingly move online. Heavy users of network bandwidth would pay higher prices without necessarily experiencing better service. Even those who use less bandwidth could run into the same situation.

Network owners believe regulation like the bills proposed by net neutrality advocates will impede U.S. competitiveness by stifling innovation and hurt customers who will benefit from ‘discriminatory’ network practices. U.S. Internet service already lags behind other nations in overall speed, cost, and quality of service, adding credibility to the providers’ arguments. Obviously, by increasing the cost of heavy users of network bandwidth, telecommunication and cable companies and Internet service providers stand to increase their profit margins.