Design By Tim

Written for Cyberlaw 325U. 

Network Neutrality (also known as Net Neutrality) is the principle that the Internet should not distinguish or differentiate between types of data carried over it. Net neutrality is also referred to as the “First Amendment of the Internet.” The battle over control and the ability to suck additional revenue from the Internet has heated to legislative levels. Advocates, generally those who can be considered content providers, are lobbying Congress to preserve the current status of delivery mechanisms. While more access providers are requesting the ability to tier access services; it has been reported they are investing billions to build faster networks to support these access tiers [Gilroy].

Both sides make good arguments about their position, but in the end it should come down to the consumer who will ultimately decide which side is right. Because the Internet has dispersed the idea of having a large funding to start a small business or platform for a voice to be heard it has also become the new “wild west” in areas such as law, communications and commerce. Advances in social communication and interaction have grown tremendously since its inception largely due in part to the free reign given traffic on the wire. What, if any, action should be taken to ensure “net neutrality” has become a major focal point in the debate over high-speed Internet access regulation and revenue jurisdiction.

In the United States, high-speed Internet carriers, including AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon, are seeking legislative support for a two-tiered Internet service model. In a two-tiered model, carriers would be able to charge owners of Web sites a premium fee for priority placement and faster speed across their pipes [Gilroy]. Those opposing the carriers argue that the Internet was designed to work in a traffic-neutral way and has become what it is, to some extent, because of that neutrality. They would like to see Congress pass a telecom reform bill that contains language in favor of net neutrality.

Proponents of net neutrality legislation, however, feel that absent some regulation, Internet access providers will become gatekeepers and use their market power to the disadvantage of Internet users and competing content and application providers. They cite concerns that the Internet could develop into a multi-tiered system favoring large, established businesses or those with ties to broadband network providers. While market forces should be a deterrent to such anti-competitive behavior, they point out that today’s market for broadband delivery is largely dominated by only two providers, the telephone and cable television companies, and that, at a minimum, a strong third player is needed to ensure that the benefits of competition will prevail.

The critics of the multi-tiered model also fear that the extra costs incurred for premium service would be passed down to the consumer in fees for sites, applications and services. They point out that small, independent sites, such as personal blogs, are on an even playing field with large, corporately owned sites in a net neutral environment but might be unable to compete in a tiered service model. Editors at the popular SaveTheInternet.com Web site explain, The Internet has thrived because revolutionary ideas like blogs, Wikipedia or Google could be started on a shoestring and attract huge audiences simply because their users found the sites valuable. Without Net neutrality the pipeline owners will choose the winners and losers on the Web.

There is concern that the ability of network providers to prioritize traffic may give them too much power over the operation of and access to the Internet [Gilroy].  If a multi-tiered Internet develops where content providers pay for different service levels, the potential to limit competition exists, if smaller, less financially secure content providers are unable to afford to pay for a higher level of access.  Also, if network providers have control over who is given priority access, the ability to discriminate against those who are granted access is also present.

Proponents of the two-tiered model point out that a tiered business model already exists: consumers have a choice of using a slower dial-up service or paying a premium price for faster speed over cable or DSL. Providers argue that if that two-tiered business model is applied to site owners as well as users, carriers will be able to offer more services like Internet-based cable TV programming and video at competitive rates. They maintain that legislation protecting net neutrality would be an unnecessary barrier to the Internet tradition of innovation and free enterprise.

A report released by the New Millennium Research Council warned that a wave of streaming video, user-generated content and the growing number of users is threatening to overwhelm the Internet. The document recommended that regulators avoid tying the hands of network managers who will have to maximize the bandwidth and efficiency of their networks. The report, “The Never-Ending Rush Hour,” prepared by Jason Kowel, avoids mentioning net neutrality, the doctrine that carrier networks should not be able to discriminate in services based on the content or source of the tsraffic.

The report continues to establish that “regulators should not inhibit Internet service providers’ flexibility to experiment with new traffic technologies and strategies.” In other words, the government should not put Net neutrality permanently into law. Which, presumably, would leave ISPs, like the report’s underwriter AT&T, in a position to create the two-tiered Internet for which they’ve been lobbying–an Internet where the speed and efficiency of data transmission would be determined by who’s willing to pay the most.

This is damaging because no one will be able to safely invest, and all existing models will die on the vine. As the risks increase, it doesn’t matter if a better system is created. It also doesn’t matter if users really like the system either, because ultimately someone else will show up and pay more to have their voice heard. It is applicable to make a comparison of the current pharmaceutical bog of the development and safeguarding of new technologies and information. As more red tape from both government and corporate (instigated by the access providers) slows down the development of new sites the technology will also fall behind due to the lack of draw from content.

Essentially the point is being made that consumer and corporate use of the Internet could overload the current capacity and lead to brown outs in two years unless backbone providers invest billions of dollars in new infrastructure. The caveat is that the access providers want a return on this infrastructure as quickly as possible. The addition of video and interactive content along with the rise of users on the Internet is being cited as the cause for this concern.

It is from this concern that companies such as Comcast have implemented software on their networks such as Sandvine. They are concerned that applications like BitTorrent are degrading their services; therefore, by eliminating the ability for that application to traverse their network they can refocus bandwidth to high use areas [Sandvine]. While this makes sense from a high level explanation, the risk of loosing consumer moral is high. From a physiological standpoint, the consumer feels they are right, and to limit the customer’s access is denying their expectation of access; regardless of if the service is actually used to the full extent.

An example of this is software that legitimately uses the BitTorrent protocol for its communication across the Internet became inoperable. Since the Internet has that “wild west” mentality, when a Comcast activated Sandvine on their networks it triggered a flood of consumer angst and bad PR. In retaliation users were forced to find other ways around Comcast’s Sandvine protection [Funcords, Et al]. In the end, Comcast’s actions have shed a bad light on those looking to support a secondary traffic tier on the Internet. ISPs are now fighting an uphill battle to convince the consumer that this instigation of Sandvine was not a bad faith initiative over the net neutrality legislation.

In a debate on the Wall Street Journal between Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist and a respected net neutrality proponent stated in response to former White House spokesman Mike McCurry, and leader of a phone industry group.  “What we’re looking for is just fairness, a level playing field, no regulation or stuff like that. In America we believe that if you play fair and work hard, you get ahead. We don’t want the government to give special privileges to the big guys, particularly not at the expense of small business and consumers. We don’t want more regulation and we don’t need lawyers involved where the free market functions well. I guess we’re for capitalism.”

References
McCurry, Mike; Newmark, Craig. “Should the Net be Neutral?.” Wall Street Journal. Online editorial. 24 May 2006. http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB114839410026160648.html

Sandvine. “Meeting the Challenge of Today’s Evasive P2P Traffic.” Sandvine. White Paper. Sept. 2004.
http://www.sandvine.com/general/getfile.asp?FILEID=16

Funchords, Et al. “Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P connections.” DSL Reports. Forum. 2 Sept. 2007. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18323368-Comcast-is-using-Sandvine-to-manage-P2P-Connections

Gilroy, Angele A. “Net Neutrality: Background and Issues.” Report Number: A940264. CRS Report for Congress. White Paper. 16 May 2006. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22444.pdf

Kowal, Jason. “The Never-Ending Rush Hour.” Analysys. White Paper. 9 Aug. 2007.
http://www.newmillenniumresearch.org/archive/Rush_Hour_August2007.pdf

The concept of “Web 2.0″ began with a conference brainstorming session between O’Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O’Reilly VP, noted that far from having “crashed”, the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. I don’t think there was any deliberate plan to suggest there was a new version of the web, or trying to define the latest technology gadgets. They just wanted to make the point that the web mattered again.

The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. In Web 1.0, a small number of writers created Web pages for a large number of readers. The separation between those along for the ride and the real success stories became apparent as the web of documents has morphed into a Web of data. Over time, however, more and more people started writing content in addition to reading it. We are no longer just looking to the same old sources for information. Now we’re looking to a new set of tools to aggregate and remix micro content in new and useful ways. Along with advances in the use of technology for the remix, two social elements arose from the ashes.

The first big element of Web 2.0 is democracy. The most dramatic example of Web 2.0 democracy is not in the selection of ideas, but their production. Associated Press CEO Tom Curley made an important and far-reaching keynote speech to the Online News Association Conference. In it he said, “… content will be more important than its container in this next phase [of the Web]… Killer apps, such as search, RSS and video-capture software such as TiVo—to name just a few—have begun to unlock content from any vessel we try to put it in.”

The second element of Web 2.0 is the social interaction impact. Sites like Facebook or Flickr tap into this motivation. Yochai Benkler discusses a similar distinction between “extrinsic” motivations and “intrinsic” motivations. Extrinsic motivations come from the marketplace, and involve money. Intrinsic motivations come from within, such as pleasure or personal satisfaction. Both of these motivations are also appropriate in some situations and not others.

This distinction is important in social design because so many of the activities people participate in online are motivated from a desire of social standing, not economic standing. What the big social network sites are doing is similar: they’re creating a place where social standing, not economic standing, is the primary motivation. Or, more to the point, they’re modeling that part of our lives in which we yearn for social standing.

Web 2.0 means using the web the way it’s meant to be used. The “trends” we’re seeing now are simply the inherent nature of the web emerging from under the broken models that got imposed on it during the Bubble. The whole point of Web 2.0 is making every website work together and connect with each other seamlessly. It’s not just flashy AJAX programming, live updating, or cool rounded edges. It’s about the convergence of all internet technology into one collective memory.

This was inspired by these great folks in the field:

What is Web 2.0 - Tim O’Rielly

Web 2.0 - Paul Graham

Facebook’s Brilliant but Evil design - Joshua Porter