In This Article
Subscribe to Business Updates
Net Neutrality Debate Heats Up
by
findingDulcinea Staff
A congressional bill to prevent telecom companies controlling the content of the Internet follows a recent FCC hearing into Comcast's activities.
30-Second-Summary
Representatives Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Chip Pickering, R-Miss. introduced a congressional bill called the Internet Preservation Freedom Act of 2008 on Feb.12.
The legislation is for Net neutrality, or “the idea that network providers shouldn't discriminate against Web sites or various types of traffic,” as PC World puts it.
The bill follows the Nov. 25 Federal Communications Commission hearing, held at Harvard Law School, which examined complaints that Comcast barred the use of the BitTorrent file-sharing program.
The FCC has not yet made any decisions on the matter, but FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has sought more hearings.
The debate regarding Net neutrality has pit the telecommunications and cable companies, like AT&T and Comcast, against content providers like Google and Amazon, as well as various nonprofits.
Content providers worry that without Net neutrality, telecom and cable companies, which provide the bandwidth for the content providers, are free to “punish companies that won't pay up” by slowing or halting connections to their sites, HowStuffWorks explains. The Comcast-BitTorrent case exemplifies that conflict.
The other argument in favor of Net neutrality is that telecom and cable companies have the ability to control the content of the Internet, curtailing the very freedom that the Web has come to represent.
Opponents of Net neutrality claim that government regulation would thwart competition and impede the technological advances that thrive in a free marketplace. The Comcast case, they argue, is an exception in a system that has been quite successful since the inception of the Internet.
The legislation is for Net neutrality, or “the idea that network providers shouldn't discriminate against Web sites or various types of traffic,” as PC World puts it.
The bill follows the Nov. 25 Federal Communications Commission hearing, held at Harvard Law School, which examined complaints that Comcast barred the use of the BitTorrent file-sharing program.
The FCC has not yet made any decisions on the matter, but FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has sought more hearings.
The debate regarding Net neutrality has pit the telecommunications and cable companies, like AT&T and Comcast, against content providers like Google and Amazon, as well as various nonprofits.
Content providers worry that without Net neutrality, telecom and cable companies, which provide the bandwidth for the content providers, are free to “punish companies that won't pay up” by slowing or halting connections to their sites, HowStuffWorks explains. The Comcast-BitTorrent case exemplifies that conflict.
The other argument in favor of Net neutrality is that telecom and cable companies have the ability to control the content of the Internet, curtailing the very freedom that the Web has come to represent.
Opponents of Net neutrality claim that government regulation would thwart competition and impede the technological advances that thrive in a free marketplace. The Comcast case, they argue, is an exception in a system that has been quite successful since the inception of the Internet.
Headline Link: Comcast hearing fuels debate
The Federal Communications Commission held a hearing on Feb. 25 at Harvard Law School to investigate grievances that Comcast purposely blocked Internet users from the BitTorrent file-sharing program. The hearing brought to light the larger issue of net neutrality. A bill in favor of net neutrality is currently circulating through Congress. FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps said, "I am not saying that any or all of these practices are unlawful. I am saying that choices like these, when you add them all together, are going to determine what kind of Internet we have in the future."
Source: PC World
Reference: What is Net neutrality?
There are two sides to the debate. The telecom and cable companies are against Net neutrality, while the content providers like “Google, Amazon, and non-profits like MoveOn.org and the National Religious Broadcasters” are for it, according to HowStuffWorks’ primer on the issue. The telecom and cable companies claim the Internet was founded on free market, “hands off” principles, while the content providers argue that the freedom of the Internet now necessitates government intervention. Without Net neutrality, they say, telecoms can control the content that consumers view on the Internet.
Source: HowStuffWorks
The 2006 Net neutrality bill
Rep. Ed Markey attempted to pass a Net neutrality bill through Congress in 2006, though a Republican-dominated House Energy and Commerce subcommittee shot it down. Regarding Net neutrality, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton said, “Before we get too far down the road, I want to let the market kind of sort itself out, and I'm not convinced that we really have a problem with Net neutrality."
Source: CNET
Opinions & Analysis: The arguments
Con
On Feb. 25, 2008, Andy Kessler wrote an opinion in The Wall Street Journal criticizing the Internet bill in favor of Net neutrality. Kessler argues, “With Net neutrality, there will be no new competition and no incentives for build outs. Bandwidth speeds will stagnate, and new services will wither from bandwidth starvation.”
Source: The Wall Street Journal
The Washington Post published an editorial in June 2006 arguing that the government should not interfere with the Internet. Staying out of cyberspace, according the Washington Post, is needed to spur technological innovation. Furthermore, the Post writes, “It seems unlikely that broadband providers will degrade Web services that people want and far more likely that they will use non-neutrality to charge for upgrading services that depend on fast and reliable delivery, such as streaming high-definition video or relaying data from heart monitors.”
Source: The Washington Post
In The Daily Texan, of the University of Texas at Austin, Christopher S. Gordon challenges the arguments made by proponents of Net neutrality. According to Gordon, Net neutrality will only benefit larger corporations like Google and Amazon in the end, not the “little people.” In order to most benefit the “Internet service industry,” Gordon writes, Internet service providers should be able to request “varying prices from different content providers to finance important and necessary upgrades to the Internet infrastructure.”
Source: The Daily Texan
Pro
John C. Dvorak from PC Magazine counters the arguments made by Andy Kessler of The Wall Street Journal (above) in opposition to Net neutrality. According to Dvorak, Net neutrality will not stifle competition, because there essentially was “de facto” Net neutrality before Comcast tried to “futz” the system. The law would simply “maintain” the successful existence the Internet previously enjoyed.
Source: Fox News
A March 5, 2008, editorial from the Seattle Times reacts to the FCC’s hearing at Harvard University, which occurred a week earlier. The FCC met in response to claims that Comcast barred use of the BitTorrent file-sharing program. But the piece states that “Lawmakers need not wait for the FCC to act” and “Congress and the FCC can see to it that the United States remains competitive with an outlet for our best minds.”
Source: The Seattle Times
William Jackson argues that government action is necessary and the Internet demands regulation: “Industry’s theory is that, given enough time, market forces will push industry to act in the public interest. But industry’s interests are not the same as the public’s. Industry protects the short-term bottom line for shareholders. The public’s interests are protected by government.”
Source: Government Computer News
‘Beyond Net neutrality’
David Weinberger agrees that there's a need for Net neutrality, but doesn't believe current proposals go far enough. Net neutrality “doesn't give us access laid like a blanket over the entire country, rich and poor alike. It doesn't give us a Net that we make together, rather than a Net the contents of which we consume.”
Source: The Boston Globe
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2012 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
