Talk of stimulus funds ignites Net neutrality debate

Consumer advocates are reigniting a debate over Net neutrality by insisting that the government require recipients of the government's $7.2 billion broadband stimulus package to adhere to special rules to ensure traffic on the Internet flows freely.

Consumer groups and Internet service providers faced off at a public hearing in Washington, D.C., on Monday set up to discuss how money from President Obama's economic stimulus package should be allocated. Public interest groups believe that the government should require companies receiving funds to adhere to special Net neutrality rules that would prevent them from discriminating against traffic traversing their networks. Service providers, on the other hand, believe that no conditions should be imposed that could hinder innovation or stifle their ability to manage their networks.

The U.S. departments of Commerce and Agriculture have been directed to disperse the broadband funding, which is supposed to help bring high-speed Internet services to underserved areas.

Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, argued at Monday's hearing that the government program is not meant to be a "charity" for broadband providers and that taxpayers should expect nondiscrimination conditions to ensure that Internet service providers don't take advantage of the funds by blocking certain kinds of traffic or choking off new and competing services.

But the phone companies and cable operators that provide broadband services have long argued that Net neutrality regulation essentially ties their hands and doesn't allow them to innovate or manage their networks properly.

The debate over Net neutrality started to heat up about three years ago, when congressional leaders first started holding hearings on new laws to ensure that Internet service providers couldn't monkey with traffic. The discovery that the nation's largest cable operator Comcast, had slowed down certain kinds of peer-to-peer traffic on its network, flamed the fire and sparked public outrage over such practices.

But the fight to create new laws to protect Net neutrality quieted down a bit after the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the communications industry, publicly admonished Comcast for violating its Net neutrality principles. These principles aren't regulation and the FCC is somewhat powerless in imposing any real punishment for violating the rules, but the public slap on the wrist coupled with public outcry was enough to get Comcast to change its practices.

For many folks in the industry, the FCC's handling of the situation and the public response seemed to be sufficient. And support for passing new laws or regulation that might later have unintended consequences, appeared to wane.

Congress has already rejected at least five bills that would impose Net neutrality regulations.

But during the presidential campaign, Net neutrality supporters got a lift when then-candidate Obama said he'd support Net neutrality regulation and laws. And now that he is president, these supporters are once again pushing for government action. Tying regulation to stimulus funds appears to be a logical way to get such rules in place, some advocates believe.

"I can't imagine a better time, when the government is doling out $7.2 billion, to have this conversation," Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, said during the hearing.

Many of the nation's largest phone companies and cable operators have already said that if such restrictions are put into place they might not be able to ask for money from the government to fund network build-outs to rural and underserved areas. And without additional government funds, it's unlikely that big players would accelerate plans to build broadband infrastructure in rural and underserved areas.

But Sohn said she thinks that with or without the big phone companies and cable operators, the infrastructure in those hard-to-reach areas of the country will still get built, since many smaller providers will be happy to get the money and will abide by the rules.

"There will be other people beating down the doors," she said.

[Reflautas]

Marguerite's bias is showing. The story profusely speaks of net neutrality as "regulating" the Internet, which is exactly what discrimination supporters want the spin to be. In truth, however, it is more accurate to say that net neutrality proponents are the true advocates of deregulation, while the anti-net neutrality are the pro-regulation advocates. That is because the opponents of net neutrality law wish to enjoy freedom to regulate the Internet themselves throught whatever discriminatory and gatekeeping functions they believe wil extract the greates dollars from consumers' pockets. The trouble is, a non-neutral Internet is an oxymoron. The Internet is, by its very architecture, neutral. A non-neutral net is an Intranet. Net neutrality opponents in effect want to destroy the "Internet" and replace it with a number of Intranets. The debate is is sort of like highway construction companies and maintenance crews wanting freedom to install whatever toll booths they please, and arguing that those who want to pass a law against it are "regulating the highways".

[Stormspace]

Mrs. Reardon when you have to pay more money each month to use Google, or Youtube, instead of the ISP approved search and video service you'll know it isn't about managing a network, but making money. Comcast is already not counting it's own VOIP traffic against caps right now, instead classifying it as different type of service separate from it Internet broadband without allowing competing services the same advantage.

[BrettGlass]

Marguerite is correct. The lobbyists who spoke in favor of regulation at the hearing pretend to be "consumer advocates," but their organizations are, in fact, heavily funded by big corporations who want the Internet to be regulated the way they want. The biggest such corporation -- the one which is investing the most money in getting these lobbying groups to do its bidding -- is Google. Now that it has merged with DoubleClick, Google is intent on making sure that ISPs do not block its tracking cookies or its other mechanisms for invading users' privacy.

These lobbyists have managed to get a "poison pill" injected into the stimulus legislation, which they claim would require any company taking the money to accept regulation not only of the new networks they built with the money, but of ALL of their networks. In short, they would have to consent to total regulation or they couldn't get a drop of the money. This is a sure way to sabotage the stimulus. Many companies will wisely refuse stimulus funding, while others will recklessly take it and will discover that they can't stay afloat if they meet all of the regulatory requirements (which require, among other things, that they not manage bandwidth on their networks and therefore would send their costs through the roof).

Of course, none of the people who advocate such regulation are actually in the business of providing broadband service to citizens. They're inside-the-Beltway lobbyists who don't have the foggiest idea how the business or the networks work. But they don't care, of course; they're being paid to say what they say. And they don't care if the stimulus is sabotaged, because they will still pull down their cushy salaries.

We can only hope that the NTIA and USDA are smart enough to ignore these lobbyists and listen instead to the folks who are actually deploying rural broadband -- as I and my company are. We've lit up unserved areas 5 times the size of Manhattan in just the past month, and this without stimulus funding. So, we know something about providing rural broadband, and we can tell them how to make the stimulus effective.

[AMart75]

I agree that net neutrality must be addressed to sustain the internet as we have come to know it. However, forcing companies to abide by "special rules to ensure traffic on the Internet flows freely" is implying a legislative position that is yet to be addressed by congress. Congress needs to move forward or it will become a battle of lobbyists.