Benjamin Dahl Network Neutrality Section I | Prologue In an age where five generations of a single nuclear family can be connected

globally using nothing more than wires; the Internet remains one of the most important technological advances of all time. With that being said, many people would argue that the state of this technological miracle is in flux. Organizations such as SaveTheInternet, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! are of the belief that this is leading towards a flawed restructuring and requires regulation. The telecommunications giants (ATT, Comcast, etc) believe that any sort of regulation is a violation of their rights as a provider and they believe the market will correct the issue. There are a number of areas that will be affected by this legislation, which has been affectionately dubbed network neutrality (hereby referred to as net neutrality). The first section of this paper will address the legal, political, and ethical concerns associated with net neutrality; the second section will address the technical and business ramifications of net neutrality.

Section II | Legal, Political, and Ethical Concerns

Net neutrality has implications in the political realm, particularly in light of the upcoming election, and the party stances remain divided across the aisle. Much like the current political arena, net neutrality requires a decision to be made about which side of the aisle to represent. Not content with anything other than a monochromatic association, net neutrality presents a gray

1|Page

area as tiny as political leaning. Kai Zhu presents two interesting arguments for this in a Berkeley Technology Law Journal. Zhu writes: First, most consumers do not understand NN in either a technical sense or an economic sense, but they can be easily provoked by abstract terms such as net freedom, digital democracy, or consumer rights that are used by NN proponents. Second, because QoS-based product differentiation may significantly limit or even eliminate bandwidth-hogging, people may perceive an imminent threat to an existing privilege, and simply react by trying to fend off that threat. (Zhu 641) Initially, this statement is overwhelming and seems even obtuse, but it represents the fundamental problem with the net neutrality debate. In order to adequately form an opinion about net neutrality the technical, economic, and political ramifications must be clearly outlined; sentiments that Zhu would very likely agree with. Prior to even wading that far into the argument, the waters of net neutrality need to be distilled. If something as important as The Internet is threatened, why does everyone seem to have their own definition of what net neutrality is and what it entails? In Googles Guide To Net Neutrality, Google defines net neutrality as, the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the internet (Net Neutrality). Wikipedia, one of the last bastions of truly neutral views about the subject matter, defines net neutrality as, the principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites, or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by

2|Page

other communication streams (Network Neutrality). Google begins to delve into the implications to the end user, while Wikipedia presents more of an overview of the topic. Wikipedia addresses the equipment aspect, as well as restrictions about platforms, something that is important given the two opposing sides of the argument. Combining the two is the best course of action and yields something like the following, net neutrality is the principle that users, not content or service providers, determine in what capacity to utilize the network resources they are provided with. Now that net neutrality has been established as Normandy, the Allied and Axis powers need to be defined and their positions evaluated. In a Business Week Online article, Catherine Holahan writes: On one side are a host of tech companies from Google to Yahoo! To Intel to Microsoft that specialize in Web-related content and technology, pushing for rules that they say would keep the Internet free from discriminatory pricing. On the other are the phone and cable companies that run the networks shuttling that information from place to place. They oppose regulation of the Internet. (1) Essentially, the battle boils down to the Internet Content Providers (Google, et al.) versus the Internet Service Providers (Verizon, ATT, et al.) with the fate of a neutral Internet hanging by a chad. Unfortunately for Average Joe, the acronyms are not the only entities vying for or against net neutrality; this is due in no small part to the obvious political implications of such legislation. In the blue corner, supporting the ICPs is the Democratic Party. Representing the red corner, supporting the ISPs is the Republican Party. Roy Mark attempts to referee in an eWeek article writing, Democrats and Republicans alike can agree that the country needs more and faster broadband to remain globally competitive (Mark 57). This might seem to contradict a

3|Page

general division of the parties when in reality it merely establishes the prize for the fight. Mark goes on to hash out his position with these words, the Democrats are seeking network neutrality laws, patent reform favored by most tech companies and a large taxpayer investment in technology (57). He then describes the Republican position that, network neutrality laws would amount to excessive and unnecessary regulation of the Internet (Mark 57). In the end, the Democrats side with the content providers (freedom of speech, civil liberties, etc), and the Republicans with the service providers (free market, big business, etc). This is not all that surprising given the relative ease with which the two primary political parties can be attached to a side of the debate; if for no reason other than the underlying party fundamentals previously highlighted in parentheses. Now that the various players have been established and the proverbial line in the sand drawn, the profundity of the argument can truly be explored. The market side of the debate argues that the entire Internet is inherently part of a larger business model and the content providers own the pipes that deliver information, so why shouldnt they be able to charge more to the water company (i.e. Google) to deliver more water. Additionally, the Internet is constantly growing and changing, and technological innovation is not cheap. It is the belief of this side that restricting the ISPs ability to generate funding will stifle innovation and ultimately lead to greater access costs for the end user. The freedom of speech pundits argue that the ability to prioritize what information reaches the end user, and at what speed is the sole responsibility of the end user. They also argue that allowing the ISPs to charge more for bandwidth usage will ultimately lead to the downfall of garage innovation, which is what started companies like Google and MySpace. With that being said, is it possible to blend two seemingly heterogeneous views and ultimately get a homogenous mixture?

4|Page

Kai Zhu is of the opinion that net neutrality does in fact present the potential for a gray area and that the argument as it stands today, is fundamentally flawed. He presents this prescient commentary as he argues, (1) the internet has never been neutral and has never been designed to be neutral; (2) internet traffic prioritization can both coexist with and encourage internet innovation; and (3) some minimal regulation is needed to prevent market power abuses and usage discrimination in the internet service market (615). Zhu is essentially boiling down the argument to what he feels are the basic components, which stands to reason as the only effective way to analyze it. He feels that the Internet is a functional tool that does not require neutrality per se, but a tool that requires oversight nonetheless. Coupling this with the ability for the ISPs to prioritize traffic, presumably based on ICP compensation, will protect garage development as well as providing funding for technological innovation. While this seems simple enough in principle, application of these items is both tedious and costly. In addition to these factors, education of the powers that be is something that also needs to be calculated. Boiling down the argument to its most basic components may be the only way to analyze it, but it neglects the sheer scale that the Internet operates on. The Internet was started in the United States and continues to be regulated largely from this country (Internet), but both Asia and Europe have significantly more users than the US (Internet World Stats). This is one of the fundamental flaws of net neutrality because net neutrality legislation is only considered as it applies to the United States government. There may be a gray area like Zhu describes where, the solution is to use bandwidth reservation to protect garage innovation under Quality of Service provision (169). However, it is inevitable that the legislative powers that be will not be swayed from their party lines and whatever side represents a majority in Congress will be declared the victor.

5|Page

If this really is the case, then what is the point of even bothering with what appears as nothing more than a futile debate? The net neutrality argument presents the same political, social, and economic implications that can be found in arguments about war in Iraq, school reform, and soft money campaign finance. Change is an inherently slow, methodical practice in this realm, and all sides of the coin must be considered before a decision can be made. From a very young age, children in the United States are engrained with this viewpoint. In one household it might be the argument of right versus wrong. In another it might be defined as cause and effect, while a third might describe it as a balance and conservation of forces. Three different ways of saying precisely the same thing consider all available options and outcomes before ultimately making a decision. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not a destination, it is a journey. Network neutrality as an inalienable right of man may be a stretch but it should be explored with the same critical eye that all other rights have been.

Section III | Business and Technical Ramifications

Ethical, social, and political dilemmas represent the one side of the binary debate; business and technical ramifications represent the zero side. The right of an individual to determine what content they can access on the Internet is definitely an important facet of the argument. Like any information system though, it is not the only part that needs to be considered. The previously discussed implications are mostly concerned with what is best described as the front-end of the argument. The technical aspect of the argument is what goes on behind-the-scenes and is the back-end of the argument. The best course of action is to consider the two sides of the story separately and then reconcile them once conclusions have been drawn.

6|Page

The Internet is a large group of interconnected computer networks, what Wikipedia describes as a network of networks (Internet). In order to utilize the Internet a user must have a destination (content), a computing device (pc, phone, etc), and a connection (dial-up, broadband, wifi, etc). The beauty of the Internet is its ability to allow on-demand access to information regardless of user location. The Internet must have physical connections between locations in order to allow this type of access. The ISPs are stereotypically the companies that provide these hardware connections between locations. ATT, Verizon, Comcast, etc, own the physical lines that allow information sent from a personal computer to be received and understood by a server in Japan. A personal home network (depending on size) can contain as much as one-thousand feet of network cable, switches, and routers. If this is a merely a personal home network, it can be extrapolated that metropolitan networks, wide area networks, and the Internet as a whole require exponentially more hardware. With that being said, one of the areas of the net neutrality debate questions the cost of this exponential amount of hardware. More specifically, who should shoulder the cost of the massive infrastructure necessary for the Internet? Until now, this is something that has fallen squarely on the shoulders of the ISPs. The ISPs then pass access costs on to the end-user who is responsible for determining the type and size of access they would like. For instance, a user who chooses Comcast as their ISP can select 6Mb, 8Mb, or 16Mb depending on what the connection will be used for and the associated cost. As the ISP is merely leasing a portion of their bandwidth to the end user, this can be an extremely profitable endeavor. The ISPs argue that with the increased amount of high-bandwidth content (i.e. YouTube, Voice-Over-IP, Internet gaming), their profits are being reduced. It is important to delineate that this merely refers to the speed of the connection and not actually what content reaches the end-

7|Page

user. In an issue of Americas Network, John Tanner quotes AT&T Chairman Ed Whitacre as saying, the Net companies use my lines for free and thats bull. For a Google or a Yahoo! or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts (Tanner 37)! This quote makes it very apparent where AT&T stands on not being able to charge additional amounts of money to ICPs based on their usage levels. Given Whitacres comment, it would stand to reason that the ICPs he refers to are not paying anything for their access, which is blatantly false. Lauren Weinstein confirms this when she writes: We all already pay for our Internet access. Google pays for its connectivity undoubtedly not petty cash either. Every DSL or Internet cable hookup is feeding money into telecom company coffers. Even if we choose to use VoIP phone services, were still paying a phone company or cable TV firm for the underlying Internet circuits. Much of the anti-neutrality argument is simple greed in action. (Weinstein) So Google and the other ICPs are paying for their access, much like the rest of the general population and yet Whitacre remains upset because they may be using more of his pipes than anyone else. While it would appear that simple greed is the catalyst for the ISP stance on the action, there is again a second side to this proverbial coin. As it stands right now, in DuPage County, IL, an 8Mb/s connection with Comcast costs $64.27 per month. This is the standard cost of service plus an upgrade fee for the enhanced bandwidth. If SBC DSL was not available at the same location for a comparable price, Comcast Internet service would cost much more. This is due to the nature of competition and how it ultimately benefits the consumer. Any business or

8|Page

management class will inform students that competition is something that is good for the consumer because it encourages decreased prices and increased innovation. This introduces two new aspects to the ISP argument about cost, incentives and access fees. Catherine Holahan writes that, If Uncle Sam reduces the potential profitability of developing such connections by forcing telecom and cable companies to shoulder the entire cost of the networks, the companies wont bother to upgrade connections (Holahan 3). Essentially, if the government removes the profit incentives from the ISPs, they will see no reason to upgrade the networks which will ultimately cause stagnation in the future. Access fees are the second aspect and are directly related to the aforementioned access fees in DuPage County. Without competition, the prices are likely to skyrocket. Additionally, if the ISPs themselves are forced to shoulder more development and infrastructure costs, this is likely something that will trickle down to the subscriber. A basic Internet access cost reaching triple digits per month is something that would not seem that ludicrous given the current progression. The Howard Hughes of the ISPs have proposed a Spruce Goose to solve the problem of profitability, infrastructure, and cost: Quality of Service prioritization. The first step in analyzing this solution is to define what exactly Quality of Service (hereby QoS) actually is. Wikipedia defines it as, the ability to provide different priority to different applications, users, or data flows, or to guarantee a certain level of performance to a data flow (Quality of Service). This would allow multiple entities (consumers or ISPs) to determine the importance of what information would ultimately reach the end-user. This is one of the most important technical aspects of the net neutrality debate because it directly correlates with the aforementioned ethical debate. Ethics aside, this type of prioritization is possible because of the way that all information is broken into packets before it is transferred across the Internet.

9|Page

In order to fully comprehend the intricacies of QoS, the way packets are transferred is also something that must be addressed. When a user does anything on the Internet their information is broken into bits and transferred as chunks or packets, to the destination. These packets will leave their computer and be transferred to a router where header information will be investigated and added and then the packet begins the journey to the destination. Throughout the course of the journey, the packet will jump from router to router until it reaches its destination. So how is this at all affected by QoS and more importantly, how does it relate to net neutrality? Kai Zhu writes that, The technical essence of the NN debate is whether routers can reduce the queuing delays of some packets by increasing the delays of other packets. When the buffers are full, the router has to drop either new arriving packets or existing queued packets (Zhu 617). Since the ISPs are shouldering the infrastructure costs of the Internet they are the ones in control of the routers that Zhu writes about. The ISPs argue that they should be allowed to charge additional fees to subscribers to increase the priority of their packets on the Internet. For instance, Google could choose to pay additional fees to their ISP in order to have their content prioritized above Yahoo!s. In an industry that is funded almost exclusively by ad revenue and click-throughs, this would spell disaster for Yahoo! Assuming the ISPs were allowed to integrate some sort of QoS prioritization based upon access fees, what do they plan to implement? Net neutrality as a whole is largely considered a very bleak gray area, and this particular area is no different. John Tanner writes, AT&T officials have put little flesh on what they would actually charge and how they would structure their prices in a post-neutrality environment. But they have insisted that end-users receiving besteffort broadband service would continue to receive the same quality service. Rather, those who wanted guaranteed delivery or better QoS would have to pay more (Tanner 38). AT&T is

10 | P a g e

effectively stating that they dont yet have a plan or pricing scheme prepared for implementation, but it will not affect broadband subscribers. Unless, of course they would like guaranteed delivery or better QoS, in which case they will have to pay more money. If the end-user did not want guaranteed delivery of their packet, why would they have sent it in the first place? The argument seems lackluster at best, particularly without any hard information about what would actually be done. Keeping that in mind, it is important to note that certain applications require a higher quality connection than others. Zhu again paints a picture as he writes, Consider two packets at a router: a packet from an e-mail arriving slightly earlier than a packet from a tele-surgery application. Should the router send out the e-mail packet first? An e-mail message can wait for a short while, but a patient under surgery cannot (Zhu 634). There is not a single e-mail that could possibly be more important than saving someones life. Zhu obviously makes a very relevant argument here for the importance of some sort of QoS prioritization, at least at the application level. But again, the argument for even this level of QoS is plagued by unknowns because of the lack of information provided by the ISPs. All things being equal, where does this leave the net neutrality argument as viewed from a technical standpoint? Unfortunately, it ends up in much the same place that the ethical argument ended up, shrouded in uncertainty. On one hand, the ISPs own the automobile and the gasoline that users need to get from their origin to their destination. On the other hand, the user should be able to select if they want to drive a Ferrari or a Pinto, what speed they want to drive, and who to take on the journey with them. Splitting the difference is likely going to be the end result with some sort of QoS scheduling allowedbased on government regulations. In addition, the ISPs might be allowed to charge additional access fees to the ICPs based on usage,

11 | P a g e

to a certain extent. These solutions require cooperation from both sides of the aisle, and in order for any of this to happen the petty name-calling needs to stop. The ICPs need to be aware of the fact that the ISPs are in business to make money, something universally true about operating a business. The ISPs need to be aware of the fact that while they might still be allowed to operate their pseudo-monopolies, there needs to be additional controls and regulations put in place that will protect the end-user. No one ever said that the ISPs shouldnt be allowed to make money, but they should not have the right to be the content dictators of the Internet. Section IV | Epilogue Throughout the course of history, mankind has challenged authority. Revolutions have been started for nothing more than seemingly unfair taxes on caffeinated beverages. The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century had the Industrial Revolution in much the same way that the Twentieth and Twenty-first have the Internet Revolution. The Internet has revolutionized the way that man does everything: business, banking, communicating, educating, medicine, the list is practically endless. Has the Internet reached its breaking point? Is net neutrality the catalyst that will cause a complete standstill in regards to technological advance? The ICPs and ISPs both argue on different sides of a debate about legislation that could change the future of technology in the United States. If net neutrality legislation is passed, the Internet will remain neutral and only the end-user will be able to determine what content reaches their device. This is at the cost of increased fees on the part of the ISPs, which some argue will mean stagnation in technological advances due to a lack of monetary incentives. The legislation is almost an exercise in futility akin to a textbook definition of a filibuster argument. This legislation is a Rubiks Cube of policies, procedures, and fair-use practices that is nothing short of a full-scale quagmire for all parties involved. With that being said, there is a

12 | P a g e

satisfactory solution but it will require a significant amount of compromise. Unfortunately, this is something that none of the parties seem interested in discussing at this point in time.

13 | P a g e

Works Cited

Holahan, Catherine. "Web War: Nothing Neutral About It."Business Week Online 29 Jan 2007: 14. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. DePaul University Lib., Chicago, IL. 3 Jun 2008.

Internet. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 3 Jun 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 3 Jun 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet&oldid=216918367>.

Internet World Stats. Miniwatts Marketing Group. 4 Jun 2008 <http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm>.

Mark, Roy. "Election 2.0." eWeek 12 Nov 2007: 54-59. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. DePaul University Lib., Chicago, IL. 2 Jun 2008.

Net Neutrality. Google. 2008. 30 May 2008 <http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html>.

Network neutrality. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 1 Jun 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 Jun 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_neutrality&oldid=217704625>.

Quality of Service. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 3 Jun 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 3 Jun 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quality_of_service&oldid=216835715>.

14 | P a g e

Tanner, John. "Battle Rages over Network Neutrality." Americas Network 110.4 (2006): 36-42. Search Premier. EBSCO. DePaul University Library, Chicago, IL. 9 Jun 2008.

Weinstein, Lauren. "Ma Bell's Revenge: The Battle for Network Neutrality." Communications of the ACM 50.1 (2007): 128. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. DePaul University Library, Chicago, IL. 8 Jun 2008.

Wilson, Carol. "Network Neutrality." Telephony 248.1 (2007): 21. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. DePaul University Library, Chicago, IL. 7 Jun 2008.

Zhu, Kai. "Bringing Neutrality to Network Neutrality." Berkeley Technology Law Journal 22.1 (2007): 615-645. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. DePaul University Library, Chicago, IL. 4 Jun 2008.

15 | P a g e