Net Neutrality Goes to Washington

As Internet distributed video poses a threat to telco and cable TV, lobbyists are working hard to reframe the "net neutrality" discussion among lawmakers and regulators in the nation's capital. (See Yahoo Unveils Go TV and Dave.tv Adds IPTV Service.)

In fact, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will discuss the issue in a hearing February 7.

What's the big deal?

Briefly, it all comes down to money and power.

IP applications like Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) video and Vonage VOIP ride "best effort" broadband networks of telcos and cable companies to reach consumers. But RBOCs and cable broadband providers are pushing their own IP voice and video services, and there's a growing fear they may provide a better quality of service (QOS) for their own applications at the expense of everyone else’s. (See Google Plans Video Service and Vonage Hits ISP Resistance.)

Instead of threatening to block competing TV or VOIP services, the RBOCs and their lobbyists are espousing a more passive, less defensive approach. Following BellSouth Corp. (NYSE: BLS)’s lead, they will more likely sell Internet companies like Google a higher tier of service to ensure the smooth delivery of their IP services. (See Google Goes to Wonkytown.)

Three of the four U.S. RBOCs -- BellSouth, Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ), and AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) -- have now made public statements in favor of that approach.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Kevin Martin is no purist when it comes to net neutrality. He has said publicly that the commission would never allow a network operator to block a given Internet service, but he says “limiting” or reducing the speed of a service is a completely different issue.

No existing laws define the responsibilities of the network operators with regard to carriage of competing IP services, says Washington-based telecom attorney Dana Frix of Chadbourne and Park LLP. So the market has been left to determine how much net neutrality is enough. (See FCC Clears Megamergers.)

Frix believes large players like Google will have no problem making QOS arrangements with the network operators, but smaller players may not be as fortunate.

“The Internet is being regulated by the market right now, and the market is not doing a very good job,” Frix says. “Because market forces can’t work appropriately: The small, the petite, will always be harmed.”

Ragi Kamal, who oversees VOIP development at Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX)'s AOL division, contrasts the U.S. regulatory environment to that of Europe. “If you look at the whole European sphere and what the telcos have to do, and what people can do over the top, it’s so much more of an open regulatory environment,” he says. “And I think the concern is -- and not just from the new product development perspective -- will the U.S. fall behind as a result of a regulatory climate that isn’t quite as encouraging?” (See We're #16!)

Frix believes the FCC should take a stand on net neutrality and dictate how the principle should apply to network operators like the RBOCs. He believes only the FCC, not Congress, has the sensitivity to the industry needed to impose such rules.

“But until there is that thoughtfulness about what issues are being raised, there should be complete net neutrality," Frix says.

Broadly defined, “net neutrality” means that Internet consumers paying for an Internet connection have access to everything on the Internet. But net neutrality, in the real world, may be a relative term.

SBC (now AT&T) CEO Ed Whitacre raised eyebrows last year when he said that allowing competing video content run unfettered over SBC networks is “nuts.” Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said during his Consumer Electronics Show keynote last week: "We have to make sure they [services] don't sit on our network and chew up our capacity."

Sources say the telco lobby may be anticipating new regulation on the issue. The FCC, for its part, isn't likely to act until net neutrality is being discussed routinely in the courtroom.

— Mark Sullivan, Reporter, Light Reading

<<   <   Page 2 / 2
abracada 12/5/2012 | 4:02:08 AM
re: Net Neutrality Goes to Washington Question 1
Yes. If QoS broadband is essential for the content providers to make a business, the charge for QoS broadband is a correct model.
The post office have introduced the express charge for almost a century and nobody complains.
Question 2
Wrong question. They will not have to do it. The basic model is the following
Every "user" will get the basic service. RBOC will provide a better service if the user asks it and is ready to pay for it.
Qhestion 3
Why not nationalize the RBOCs and build a public service providing for free of course QoS broadband
anywhere, any time.
rjs 12/5/2012 | 4:02:05 AM
re: Net Neutrality Goes to Washington cigogne, the answer to your question is YES!!


"If you are happy with the basic service for your VoIP packet, do you really believe that the RBOC will do a deep packet analysis of ALL basic service packets just to extract a few voice packets, just to make you unhappy without having any financial interest as you will be so upset that you will change your DSL provider."
fgoldstein 12/5/2012 | 4:02:05 AM
re: Net Neutrality Goes to Washington cj> ...just to make you unhappy without having any financial interest as you will be so upset that you will change your DSL provider.

I'm not sure what you're saying. What does "change your DSL provider" mean? There is only ONE DSL provider. Nobody else is stringing copper wire but the One True Phone Company. And under the enlightened leadership of our deregulatory FCC, installed by the infallible George W. Bush Blessed Be He, the One True Phone Company no longer has to let any other companies share ITS own PROPERTY, its wires. So it is the only DSL provider, and only that way America Will Have Broadband.

That's how it works in The Portals now.
fgoldstein 12/5/2012 | 4:02:04 AM
re: Net Neutrality Goes to Washington Seriously, LR, you asked the question wrong.

Net Neutrality is not about QoS. That's a red herring. Net Neutrality is all about Deep Packet Inspection of all Internet content, and about replacing packet transmission with Information Brokerage. In this way the owner of the wire extracts the value of the transmission, of the transactions carried across the wire, and does not merely deal in raw bits, streams, packets, flows, whatever.

Watch Rod Randall's "Don't Get Skyped" show, or watch a presentation from one of the DPI vendors. It's not about QoS. But because people are catching on, Big Ed is making a big stink as if it were about QoS, in order to throw off the dogs.

Cop 1: Ed, we caught you trying to rob the bank.
Ed: I was not shoplifting at the 7-11! Call the newspapers! I'm being falsely accused! I wasn't even at the 7-11!
Cop 2: Hmmm, we better go down to the 7-11 and get a Slurpee.
Cop 1: Why are we at the bank when payday isn't until tomorrow?
Ed: You can have your Slurpee! I paid for mine!
Mark Sullivan 12/5/2012 | 4:01:59 AM
re: Net Neutrality Goes to Washington I do think that network operators might eventually use deep packet inspection to detect the *value* (to the consumer) of the packet and charge QOS accordingly. Some packets are worth more than others.
Mark Sullivan 12/5/2012 | 4:01:59 AM
re: Net Neutrality Goes to Washington I disagree with you about QOS, but I think your Ed Whitacre illustration is pretty funny. Thanx for the laugh.
materialgirl 12/5/2012 | 4:01:56 AM
re: Net Neutrality Goes to Washington Dear Peter:
Your questions indeed slant the answer you seek. It is like the budget debate on social security cuts that ignores the possibility of tax increases (or cost cuts at the care providers).

In a competitive bit market, content providers would have a choice of providers, one of which would offer the "best" bandwidth offering. We lack that at fg notes. So the question is:

1) What is the social cost of a second-rate information infrastructure?

2) What is the best way to maximize economic growth, not service provider profits?

3) Finally, "If we are stuck with monopoly control over network choke points, what is the best way to incent the monopoly provider to invest in bandwidth?"
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Sign In