The Net Has Never Been ‘Neutral’

Regardless of the FCC’s new rules, big websites have always been able to pay for better service.

A golden statue of Lady Justice in Bruges, Belgium
National Journal
Brendan Sasso
See more stories about...
Brendan Sasso
May 13, 2014, 1 a.m.

The In­ter­net is about to mutate from an egal­it­ari­an uto­pia in­to a cor­por­ate hell­s­cape.

At least, that’s the ar­gu­ment from some people ral­ly­ing op­pos­i­tion to the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion’s pro­pos­al for weak­er net-neut­ral­ity rules.

The ar­gu­ment goes that the In­ter­net has al­ways been a bas­tion of equal­ity, a level play­ing field where all web­sites load at the same speed without hav­ing to pay any “tolls.” And the FCC is about to throw all that away.

FCC Chair­man Tom Wheel­er is push­ing new reg­u­la­tions that would al­low In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders to charge web­sites for spe­cial “fast lanes,” sub­ject­ing any web­site that can’t pay to worse levels of ser­vice. The pro­pos­al would cre­ate a two-tier In­ter­net where rich com­pan­ies can de­liv­er high­er-qual­ity videos and oth­er con­tent than every­one else, the crit­ics warn.

“The geni­us of the In­ter­net is that it al­lows in­nov­a­tion without per­mis­sion, not in­nov­a­tion only after cut­ting a deal with the ISP and re­ceiv­ing the FCC’s bless­ing for it,” a group of 11 Demo­crat­ic sen­at­ors wrote in a re­cent let­ter to the FCC, ur­ging the agency to en­act stronger net-neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions.

“Sanc­tion­ing paid pri­or­it­iz­a­tion would al­low dis­crim­in­a­tion and ir­re­voc­ably change the In­ter­net as we know it.”

But the truth is that the In­ter­net has nev­er been the level play­ing field that some seem to be­lieve. Big web­sites have al­ways been able to pay for faster ser­vice — and the biggest ones are already spend­ing bil­lions to get it.

For ex­ample, just about all ma­jor web­sites pay for con­tent de­liv­ery net­works, or CDNs, to carry their traffic. Those CDNs (com­pan­ies like Akamai and Level 3) build net­works of serv­ers around the coun­try to store web­site data.

That way, a Face­book user in New York City try­ing to watch a friend’s video clip doesn’t have to re­trieve data all the way from Face­book’s headquar­ters in Menlo Park, Cal­if. In­stead, the user is ac­tu­ally con­nect­ing to a much closer serv­er owned by a CDN that Face­book has hired.

A world­wide net­work of serv­ers helps to speed up web­sites, ease con­ges­tion, and is bet­ter able to handle cy­ber­at­tacks.

“They are a com­mer­cial ser­vice you have to pay for,” Chris­toph­er Yoo, a law pro­fess­or at the Uni­versity of Pennsylvania, ex­plained. “And it’s good for the In­ter­net.”

It would be im­possible for someone to start a high-qual­ity video stream­ing site in a gar­age without pay­ing for some in­ter­me­di­ary to handle traffic. The site would grind to a halt as soon as a sig­ni­fic­ant num­ber of people tried to use it.

Small start-ups are nearly al­ways at a dis­ad­vant­age — and the In­ter­net is no ex­cep­tion. For ex­ample, skyrock­et­ing band­width bills re­portedly con­trib­uted to You­Tube’s de­cision to sell it­self to Google in 2006.

Many of the largest com­pan­ies like Google, Apple, Amazon, and Mi­crosoft build their own data cen­ters to en­sure a smooth ser­vice for their users, in­vest­ing bil­lions of dol­lars to give their web­sites an edge over the com­pet­i­tion.

The In­ter­net’s ex­ist­ing in­equit­ies are ac­know­ledged both by ad­voc­ates and op­pon­ents of net neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions.

Kev­in Werbach, a busi­ness pro­fess­or at the Uni­versity of Pennsylvania, and Phil Weiser, the dean of the Uni­versity of Col­or­ado Law School, are both sup­port­ers of net-neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions. But in a re­cent Huff­ing­ton Post op-ed, they em­phas­ized that there’s noth­ing new about com­pan­ies pay­ing for bet­ter In­ter­net ser­vice.

“Say­ing the FCC ac­tion will ‘force com­pan­ies to pay tolls’ or ‘cre­ate a two-tier In­ter­net’ makes it seem as though com­pan­ies such as Net­flix and Google cur­rently use the In­ter­net for free. They don’t,” the pro­fess­ors wrote. “They pay ac­cess pro­viders; they pay in­ter­me­di­ar­ies called trans­it pro­viders; they pay CDNs; and they pay to build or buy their own in­fra­struc­ture.”

Pay­ing to en­sure fast ser­vice isn’t the only way that some web­sites have an ad­vant­age over oth­ers.

Search en­gines, par­tic­u­larly Google, are the main tool that many people use to find in­form­a­tion on­line. Web­sites at the top of a search page have a huge ad­vant­age over sites bur­ied un­der pages of res­ults. Slight tweaks to Google’s search al­gorithm can make or break a com­pany.

Crit­ics of Google (such as Mi­crosoft and Yelp) ar­gue that the gov­ern­ment should im­pose “search neut­ral­ity” to bar Google from fa­vor­ing its own ser­vices — such as Google Maps, Google+, and You­Tube — in search res­ults.

Google faced a nearly two-year in­vest­ig­a­tion by the Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion in­to its search prac­tices. In early 2013, the FTC con­cluded that there was “some evid­ence” that Google ma­nip­u­lated its search res­ults to high­light its own ser­vices. But the com­mis­sion chose not to bring charges, say­ing that in many cases, Google’s changes im­proved the “user ex­per­i­ence” by re­li­ably pro­du­cing more use­ful res­ults.

The idea of total neut­ral­ity is es­pe­cially ab­surd for people who ac­cess the In­ter­net on smart­phones and tab­lets.

Apple has ab­so­lute power over what mo­bile apps are al­lowed in its store. Apps can re­portedly be banned for be­ing of­fens­ive, us­ing too much data, be­ing too glitchy, hav­ing small font sizes, in­fringing on trade­marks, or nu­mer­ous oth­er reas­ons.

In a re­cent in­ter­view, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wiki­pe­dia, said the Apple App Store is more of a threat to the open­ness of the In­ter­net than po­ten­tial ab­uses by In­ter­net pro­viders.

“We just need to look at the Apple App Store “¦ where everything that runs on your iPhone or iPad has to be ap­proved by Apple, with them tak­ing a huge cut of the rev­en­ue at every step, with no real com­pet­i­tion in sight. Con­sumers should be very wor­ried about that,” Wales said.

Al­though the In­ter­net has nev­er been per­fectly neut­ral, that doesn’t ne­ces­sar­ily mean the FCC’s at­tempts to po­lice In­ter­net pro­viders are fu­tile — or that the equal­ity gap couldn’t grow.

Com­pan­ies like Com­cast ex­er­cise enorm­ous power over our ac­cess to in­form­a­tion be­cause they own the “last mile” of cable in­to our homes. Con­trolling the on-ramp to the en­tire In­ter­net makes them a much more power­ful gate­keep­er than a search en­gine or a so­cial net­work.

“The ques­tion isn’t wheth­er the In­ter­net treats every­one equally — be­cause it doesn’t already,” said Har­old Feld, the seni­or vice pres­id­ent of con­sumer-ad­vocacy group Pub­lic Know­ledge. “The ques­tion is wheth­er adding a new level of dis­crim­in­a­tion in the last mile is the crit­ic­al dif­fer­ence.”

The FCC first en­acted net-neut­ral­ity rules in 2010, but a fed­er­al Ap­peals Court struck them down earli­er this year. Wheel­er is now try­ing to re­write the rules in a way that can sur­vive court chal­lenges.

His pro­pos­al would still bar In­ter­net pro­viders from block­ing web­sites. The pro­viders would, however, be able to charge sites for faster ser­vice as long as the agree­ments are “com­mer­cially reas­on­able.”

Wheel­er has said he plans to crack down on any ar­range­ments that are an­ti­com­pet­it­ive, bad for con­sumers, or in­fringe on free speech. Pro­viders would not be al­lowed to fa­vor traffic from an “af­fil­i­ated en­tity” — so Com­cast couldn’t boost con­tent from NBC (which it owns). In­ter­net pro­viders would also not be al­lowed to de­grade their over­all level of ser­vice to make the “fast lanes” more ap­peal­ing.

Wheel­er’s pro­pos­al, set for a pre­lim­in­ary com­mis­sion vote on Thursday, has promp­ted an out­pour­ing of pub­lic an­ger. Crit­ics ar­gue that any “pay-for-pri­or­ity” schemes on the In­ter­net are an ab­use of mar­ket power by broad­band pro­viders and are in­her­ently bad for con­sumers.

But re­gard­less of what hap­pens with the FCC rules, even the worst-case scen­ari­os won’t be cre­at­ing in­equal­ity on the In­ter­net — only ex­pand­ing it.

MOST READ
What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×