FCC vote on net neutrality

The FCC will soon vote on net neutrality. It appears the vote will go 3-2 against maintaining neutrality. I have written for several years explaining my opposition to this change (use tag to view previous posts).

This is largely a decision to benefit big business and it is often argued by Pai (FCC chair) that this is a way to encourage innovation. It is not a vote for Internet users or for small Internet companies and providers. A change in present standards will allow providers to control the speed of access to specific online services and possibly whether you can see what you want to see. These changes benefit those established providers able to pay for a fast lane. If you live in many parts of the country, you have no choice in who your provider is so you are completely at the mercy of the priorities of that provider. The Internet and Internet services were not built by these large companies. Simply put, they control the “last mile” that allows you to connect. They do not generate the services and content you use nor are they responsible for the “backbone”.

The FCC ignored the request of 20 million-plus citizens who responded to their call for comment. At this point, your only recourse is to appeal to your senators. Minnesota senators have long been neutrality defenders so my appeal matters little (I did send a note). Contact your senator if you disagree with the repeal of the neutrality standard.

Neutrality Day of Action

Today has been declared Net Neutrality Day of Action. Net neutrality is a concept that many may be unfamiliar with and may not get excited about even if they were aware. It is the concept that content on the Internet is treated the same by the system no matter the source. Mostly, it prevents ISPs from forwarding content at different speeds depending on the type of content or the source. Neutrality was originally enforced by the FCC to prevent providers (mostly cable or phone companies) from prioritizing their own interests. For example, phone companies might want to slow VOIP communication (voice over IP) because VOIP competes with traditional phone communication. Cable companies who wanted also provide movies might want to slow video from other sources.

The present administration and its pro-business mentality propose that neutrality is a barrier to business innovation and suggests that natural competition will take care of improper practices. Both arguments are disputed. More than half of US citizens don't have access to multiple options for high speed access so the natural competition argument makes little sense for citizens using the Internet under such circumstances. The original Internet allowed online opportunities for anyone. This equality is being eroded as a few large companies have taken over.  Companies may dominate because of efficiency and ease of use (e.g., Facebook), but the opportunity for all participants has remained (Note - Facebook supports net neutrality). Now the FCC has reversed the earlier position on equality of treatment. Support for business argument could be interpreted in a very different way. What chance do new companies have against companies that are already wealthy and can prevent new companies from gaining a foothold.

Today companies and activists supporting net neutrality are urging citizens to take action and contact the FCC.

Some organizations have devised ways for supporters of neutrality to bring this issue to the attention of the public and urge their input. WordPress is the most popular blog software in existence (this particular blog does not run on WordPress software). Automattic, the company responsible for WordPress, has created a plugin users running WordPress applications can use to bring attention to the neutrality issue. I have installed this software on another of my blogs. Anyone visited this blog today (July 12) will experience a very slow response and see a message related to the neutrality issue. This is a temporary way to bring attention to the issue.

Your ISP is not the Internet. It is only the company you use to provide access to the Internet backbone and to the content provided by others. As a content provider, I have no say in what ISPs do, but their decisions may influence the experience my readers have. Consider this issue on a much larger scale and you may appreciate why many object to the FCC deciding that some companies may be prioritized over individuals and other companies.

Neutrality issues go mainstream

I have fallen into writing about some topics that seem beneath the radar for most ed tech bloggers. I assume many writing about ed tech have a local focus and avoid topics that have a political tinge because they would prefer to remain apolitical or because they assume they cannot make a difference.

I became interested in what is called "net neutrality" in 2005/2006. Because the phrase seems to mean different things to different people, I define neutrality as an ISP being agnostic as to the type or source of content delivered to a user. Some used to describe this as "bits is bits" - meaning the user pays for access at a certain rate and the provider should not be able to manipulate the content the user desires to consume.

I understood the original concern to be that providers could use their control to prioritize other services they might provide. For example, a cable company selling premium movie channels might advantage such channels by making it difficult to download content purchased from a service such as NetFlix. A DSL provider might reduce the quality of Skype or some other VOIP service to advantage the phone services it sells.

More recent concerns focus on content providers allowing some to "fast track" their content by making deals with service providers.This multiplies the advantages of existing successful companies making it difficult for new companies or hobbyists to contribute content.

Just for the record, I do not accept the argument that a net neutrality position prevents businesses from generating a reasonable return on their investments. Much was invested before the large companies became involved. The Internet was not created by business ventures or ramped up by commercial content providers. The Internet came from the research community and was pretty much developed by hobbyists. Business entities came into the game once profit potential was established. The supposed great risks they take are not exactly the risks of R&D. Also, those companies in a position to offer these services were few in number and already well established. By building on top of the cable or phone companies, the services were provided in sectors of the economy that were already close to monopolistic. Many of us live in areas of the country with one option and a low quality and expensive option at that.

The President has now taken a solid position on net neutrality. A position taken by the President has generated the typical response from the republicans.  This could easily be framed as a small business vs big business issue. Those who read tech blogs probably know about this issue, but the dem vs republican angle may now bring the topic to the attention of the average citizen. I think positioning this as a red/blue confrontation is unfortunate, but this may be what it takes to generate some attention. I am concerned we are losing sight of the original promise of the Internet and will become limited by the financial goals of a few large companies.

New ideas on net neutrality

Is the fight over net neutrality the wrong fight? This article from Tech Review says the absolute equality of all bits may be limiting advances and even proposes that video bits be prioritized over static web page bits. The combination of Netflix and Youtube account for nearly 50% of traffic. 

Defining the terms of the debate

Who gets to define the terms that are the focus of a debate? One might think that a phrase has an obvious meaning, but for reasons of self promotion or ambiguity this is not always of the way it works. Take "fair and balanced" as an example.

 I have been commenting on the role of corporate interests in exerting control over your Internet for some time. How do I offer fair and unbalanced comments on this topic. I am by nature an idealist and I had hopes for free expression on the Internet as a way to take back public participation in all forms of policy and politics. Whatever claims made against the biases of media outlets, I had hoped that the opportunity for each of us to express our personal biases would be a remedy. Most probably have no idea why Web 2.0 was described as 2.0. The notion of a "participatory web" or a "read/write web" we could be more than consumers.

The leveling potential of the web in terms of equal expression and equal opportunity is being threatened by the companies that control your access to the Internet. Your cable or phone company wants to do more than offer you access. They want to influence what you access. This is how I think of net neutrality - does the provider exert control over how you use the bandwidth your purchase. Some might claim that is up to the provider as they are providing the service. I might agree should I have alternatives in the services I can access. This is not the case and given that monopolistic practices typically are allowed with some government oversight I encourage reasonable government control of price and neutrality.

 Now, to what I mean by the definition of terms. Net neutrality is one of those "Rorchach"-like abstractions that individuals interpret according to their own beliefs. I would prefer we are clear on what we mean by "neutrality" in this case and I defer to Tim Wu on this matter. Wu coined the phrase and hence explains what it meant before it was corrupted by others.