Image: Illustration by Harry Campbell
The island of Key Biscayne, Fla., sits in the Atlantic Ocean 10 miles southeast of Miami. Its 10,000 residents depend on the Rickenbacker Causeway, a four-mile-long toll bridge connecting the island to the mainland, for all their supplies. Right now all vehicles passing through must pay a set toll—$1.50 for cars, $9.00 for three-axle cargo trucks, and so on. But what would happen if a bridge owner decided to charge a toll based not on the size of a vehicle but on the cargo it was carrying? He could let his brother’s lumber-supply company through for free and make its chief competitor pay through the nose. He could force the Winn-Dixie grocery store to double its prices, pushing area residents to local restaurants. In short, the bridge owner would have the power to control everything that the residents of Key Biscayne have access to.
This is the essence of the widely discussed but little understood concept of “net neutrality.” The bridge, in this case, represents the lines that carry the Internet to your home computer or smart phone. So far Internet service providers have for the most part treated all content equally. The worry is that, sensing a business opportunity, they might strike deals with certain content providers to deliver faster access for a fee or to block some information entirely. The worry isn’t completely theoretical; Comcast recently told the company that delivers Netflix streaming videos that it needed to pay up if it wanted to access Comcast’s customers. (Lost on no one was the fact that Netflix directly competes with Comcast’s own video-on-demand service.)
To make matters worse, most Americans have only one choice of high-speed broadband provider; the most fortunate have two. Unhappy subscribers cannot just leave and get their Internet elsewhere. This effective monopoly leaves consumers with little protection from a provider that has the means to filter everything that they can buy, watch and read.
Internet service providers contend that they must retain the flexibility to manage their networks in the way they see fit—slowing or blocking some high-bandwidth applications to ensure reliable service for all. Network management is a serious concern, but it must not become a cover for policies that censor any content displeasing to the corporate gatekeeper. The Federal Communications Commission approved a rule last December that was intended to ensure equal treatment of content providers. Yet while the FCC rule prohibits “unreasonable” discrimination of network traffic, it fails to spell out what unreasonable behavior entails. The ruling is vague in ways that only a Washington, D.C., lawyer could love; the only certainty it gives is of the tens of thousands of billable hours to be spent arguing over the meaning of “unreasonable” in federal court.
The fix, however, is simple. As the FCC goes about enforcing this ban on so-called unreasonable policies, it should clarify that the only kind of unreasonable discrimination is discrimination against particular applications.
What would this mean in practice? Instead of the “all you can eat” data plans of today, Internet service providers could sell customers access by the gigabyte. They could limit performance at peak times of the day to help balance network load or offer superfast plans at higher prices.
Internet service providers would not, however, be able to determine which applications go fast and which go slow. They would not be able to reach a deal with Facebook to speed up that site’s page loads while slowing down LinkedIn. They could not put Skype calls through a bottleneck or throttle back all video-streaming sites, because these are all judgments based on application. This clarification gives Internet service providers the leeway they need to maintain healthy networks, as well as plenty of incentive to invest in advanced network infrastructure for those customers willing to pay for ultrahigh-speed service. But it takes away the power of Internet service providers to choose winners and losers. We can accept that a bridge owner can charge vehicles based on their size—$1.50 for cars, $9.00 for three-axle cargo trucks—but a democratic society can’t abide discrimination based on content.
This article was originally published with the title Keep the Internet Fair.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentYet another instance where intellectuals think they can run companies (and thus, the economy) better than the companies themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, the networks managed by ISPs such as AT&T are invariably owned by those same ISPs. As it is their property, they have the right to do whatever they want with it. This naturally includes discrimination of certain data packets.
On a similar note, you do NOT have a "human right" to internet service (let alone service that is free from the tinkering of the company that owns the network).
We should always favor more freedom over less freedom (less government over more government). I see no reason why the State should become involved in yet another aspect of our lives.
The Internet, like everything from cars to computers, should be run by the market. This is the best and most efficient decision, as the full weight of the price systems comes to bear on the ISPs.
I am concerned by this statement: "The fix, however, is simple. As the FCC goes about enforcing this ban on so-called unreasonable policies, it should clarify that the only kind of unreasonable discrimination is discrimination against particular applications." It seems to me that discrimination based on content or viewpoint is also unreasonable discrimination for an ISP. I would not want an ISP deciding that climate change is a hoax and therefore can be blocked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst,our tax dollars built the internet and allows everyone to use it to as they see fit. This includes corporations that don't pay taxes and others who feel they shouldn't have to pay taxes at all but, eagerly and greedly use all government services. Second if you don't have some discrimination you will never be rid of "spammers", idenity theif, and sexaul predators. A free soceity must have the tools to keep itself and its members safe from criminal acts , which we don't do. Third, I would agree in part to your accessment but only for the need of some checks and balance to prevent Comcast shareholds from putting themselves out of business.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right we don't have a human right to internet access because it was hi-jake by greedy corporations who have ruled it like mobsters. The internet was born in government during the last war. In the eighties b4 web browers everything was free all you needed was a phone line which usually sitting on a table somewhere. My point is there is a group of you out there that thinks the governmnet is evil yet load up on all the free stuff. I got it don't pay taxes and you can't use the streets, highways, no police or fire protection, no airplanes and since farmers get subsidies no food. You have to get your food from China. The point is the discusion has been turned inside out because no one can leave his or her bias out fo the conversation. There is alot wrong with the internet and we need a group of specialist to sit down and hammer out something that works for the majority of users. If you ever get your ID stolen you may wish there were controls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel the analogy of axles was in the right direction, but it should have been in tons. An empty truck is paying the same as a overloaded truck. I agree something has to be done, but I feel that charging by the gigabyte also has it's problems. For one, most of us have no idea how many gigabytes we use or how to conserve gigabytes. Some cell phones charge this way, and in many cases, it runs up a high cost. I agree in principle, but I favor less regulation of anything, it just makes for big government. Maybe some sort of governor that gives priority to the low volume user would be a better way. Users that want even higher throughput could pay extra, much like a business having a T1 or T3 line. On a smaller scale, just buy two lines if a higher throughput is required/desired.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGordon Johnson
Santa Cruz, CA
Like most simple fixes to complex problems, the one you propose is wrong. You assume that applications all have the same requirements in terms of delivery latency and cost, and therefore seek to enforce a dysfunctional rule that flows from your poor understanding of the situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkype packets need to be delivered in less than 200 ms or they're worthless, but video streaming can tolerate delays of up to several seconds because they're buffered at the destination. It therefore makes perfect sense for ISPs to organize traffic flows in such a way that Skype gets more favorable treatment during minor congestion events than streaming video. The engineers who write the Internet's technical specifications realize this, and therefore created standards by which diverse applications can negotiate terms of carriage with network operators, such as RFC 2475 which says: "Service differentiation is desired to accommodate heterogeneous application requirements and user expectations, and to permit differentiated pricing of Internet service." The RFC 2475 regime - known as Differentiated Services or DiffServ - also allows rational charging for applications like telepresence that need to communicate as much information as streaming video with the latency of Skye. All applications are not equal.
I frequently buy live marine invertebrates on the Internet and have them shipped overnight. I certainly pay more for this service than I would for three day service, but as I desire live animals rather than dead ones, I'm willing to pay. I would be willing to pay a reasonable fee for a telepresence session across the Internet for similar reasons, and see no reason why my ISP should not be allowed to offer this service to me.
Not only is your "simple solution" in conflict with the Internet's own design, your alleged facts are wrong. 80% of Americans do have a choice of at least two wireline, broadband ISPs and 98% have terrestrial and/or satellite options. The monopoly you allege simply does not exist for the vast majority of American Internet users.
It's disappointing that Sci Am's editors are still confused about the basic facts of the net neutrality debate after all this time. This is at least the fourth or fifth opinion piece you've offered on the subject, and your insight is below the Internet Policy 101 level.
See: http://itif.org/publications/facts-life-citizen%E2%80%99s-guide-network-engineering
One issue that is being totally missed is that Comcast customers don't physically connect to the internet; they connect to Comcast's cable system. The major content that requires multi-megabit transfers is media, such as movies, TV, other entertainment. Comcast already provides this at no cost to Comcast via pay-per-view (aka On-Demand). So however internet content is charged, Comcast will not have to pay for its transmissions, which would be a great, and perhaps unfair, advantage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat really needs to be done is to separate the content providers from the owners of physical transmission, much like the separation of electrical power producers and transmission owners, a major change to the utility business. Only this model, or one with similar results, can lead to fair and balanced media markets.
I can type into my browser any word in any language and in less than a second get over a million references to that word.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the single most liberating and purest form of free market expression since the invention of the printing press. There is absolutely no way of making it "fairer" without making it less free. Any government regulation to make it "fairer" by definition is a form of control.
And while I'm at it; the very least intellectual phrase currently in Vogue is that of "greedy corporations". The use of that phrase betrays a profound ignorance on the part of the user, and anything written beyond that phrase should be ignored.
It's true that Comcast, for example, customers' use of video services is transmitted on Comcast's network (the pricing of which is scaled by node throughput). However, Netflix or any other video service provider is contributing to the infrastructure bandwidth requirements for all other network providers. In this case, as I understand, the independent video service provider does not pay for any infrastructure bandwidth requirements, only the bandwidth of their servers' internet connections.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile Comcast customers may only be connected to Comcast's network, they may be accessing high bandwidth services from providers that are not directly connected to Comcast's network: it's called the internet because all individual physical networks are interconnected and accessible.
If my neighbor and customer of my network provider is downloading videos from an independent video service provider every evening, their traffic may be blocking my access to the physical network and the only company reaping any financial benefit is the video services provider. There is no financial incentive for our network provider to increase any infrastructure bandwidth required to meet the demands generated by an independent service provider.
In general then, since actual costs of providing network traffic is not borne by independent service providers, they should be able to charge less for those services than network providers, driving up uncompensated network bandwidth requirements.
I'm not arguing that only network providers should be able to provide bundled high bandwidth services, but that independent service providers should be required to compensate network providers for their traffic requirements - for the health of the entire internet.
Except for the fact that these companies are utilities that have been granted monopolies because we don't want six different cable providers running six sets of cable across every city. Car's and computers are a different story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour reasoning is right out of the middle ages, meaning might is right. These ISP provide lines, hardware, manpower, etc. How does that give them the right to look at content and determine if they will allow access. This is in comparison to a car dealership dictating where you drive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree all methods of public communications require guidelines and this cannot be determined by each ISP. However, if our right to free speech is trampled on then we will be living in a dictatorship.
there is enough cable in the ground to provide extreme fast internet, the slowest part are the last meters to your home, so you don't need to worry about your neighbor. Also money is already payed to internet service provider, why pay twice?.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is guarantee of bandwidth, it is not guaranteed unless you pay for a leased line
In reality such lines are often packed together, but thats just technical.
Also trafic shaping (prioritizing) does allready happen how do you think it is possible an ISP can deliver phone communication over the internet, to public PSTN ?, just by reserving bandwidth for it.
Now that phone example is interesting, because ISP smell money here, after phones, you get video on demand. Should they allow you to freely watch youtube tonight. While they also want to make money with their TV broadcast service?
So the ISP's like you to believe that their bandwidth is running out, so you will pay them and they can control your (ISP based) televesion.
Its smart of them!
But not really legal,you allrady payed them and you should be free to decide if they become the next television boradcaster for who you have to pay.
For the moment just download your movies, because thats what they dont want you to do, to be in your own control of what you want.
I think patpentz hit the nail on the head: separation of content providers from owners of physical transmission. Removing the conflict of interest should ultimately benefit everybody. Corporations are not given their legal privileges and protections for their own sake, but in order that they serve the public interest. If competition does not keep them in line then regulation should be applied as necessary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI take it Justcaris does not object to the law restricting the freedom of passing felons to use their own (bought and paid for) handguns as they see fit? : )
SciAm: Metered internet is the worst possible solution, out of all of them out there. It's a tremendously bad thing, and here's why:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Cooling effect on the internet. Nobody would go to sites like Youtube or Hulu any more (because it burns through your quota like nothing else), and would block new sites like this from forming.
2) It's based on the nonsense idea that there's a limited number of electrons available each month, that you can run out of. Guess what? If capacity isn't used, that unit of data is lost forever. And if you meter internet (charging people 10c/video on Youtube, which is what current metered solutions cost), you'll end up wasting tremendous amounts of bandwidth.
3) ISPs love metered internet because they stand to make a fortune on overage charges, while simultaneously not having to invest in additional bandwidth (because of #1 and #2). They also tend to set limits far too low (5G/month might be marginally fine for a smartphone, but certainly not for a desktop).
SciAm, you really ought to remove this editorial and replace it with the real solution: real net neutrality.
If you really need a draconian data-cap system put in place, then use soft caps instead of hard caps. (Google it if you don't know what this means.)
The issue between Comcast and Level3 was not a net neutrality issue. Level3 requested Comcast provide 30 additional 10 Gbps connections to their network after Netflix moved to their servers. Comcast objected to having to pay for those connections.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article http://www.hostmycalls.com/2011/03/01/net-neutrality-%e2%80%93-the-pot-holed-road-to-nowhere/ claims that net neutrality is a theoretical issue which is distracting us from the real problem: broadband competition and proliferation.
Really a educative and informative post, the post is good in all regards,I am glad to read this post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.cellhub.com/t-mobile-cell-phones/samsung-galaxy-s-4g-black.html
Samsung Vibrant 4G
The World Wide Web should not be filtered. If you don't know how to use the computer/internet, and you don't know how to keep yourself safe, then stay off it, or LEARN. But to practically say it's okay for someone else to CHOOSE FOR YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO is stupidity, and Non-American like. Non-Human like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(WORLD WIDE WEB - SAY IT)
I'm rather amazed by comments #1 and 8 for their sheer ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, you realize that the internet was built by the government right? It did not spring from the free market, it was born of a Department of Defense spending through DARPA.
Second, please, I would LOVE to hear your explanation of how the free market will regulate a monopoly. The whole concept of a monopoly is that it breaks the underlying foundation of a free market: competition. Laying cable is a massively expensive undertaking which creates an insurmountable barrier for entry to any company wanting to become an ISP (the existing ones had the US government's help). How can the free market solve the issue of data discrimination if there is no competition in 95% of the broadband market? I live in the middle of downtown Manhattan and even I only have one ISP option. You think someone in the middle of North Dakota or Ohio has a choice? You're are the mercy of your regional ISP with no viable options currently, short of moving you whole life for better internet.
And finally, you both seem to be lumping the ISPs in with the users against the "big bad government." As if government regulation of the ISP will somehow begin infringing on your freedom. You do realize that the regulation we're talking about here is to PREVENT the ISP from doing exactly what you fear the government would do, right? Comcast can, on a whim, right now, block all traffic to the NYTimes, or Fox News, or CNN, or anyone it wants, with absolutely no repercussions or accountability if they choose to. Their subscribers can't "vote with their dollars" because there's no one else to go to in the overwhelming majority of their service area.
There seems to be a pathological fear of government regulation coming from a lot of people when discussing net neutrality and it utterly amazes me because you wind up completely misunderstanding who the real threat to your internet freedom is: The guy who's already controlling your access right now.
I understand that this article is listed under "opinion", and not presumed to be based on any facts or a full understanding of the issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I understand that the author states this is a "simple fix" who obviously should be included in group of "little understood" as it relates to this topic of network neutrality.
I understand that the internet has become a critical element to our economy, business operation, entertainment, etc.
I understand that the internet was built and paid for by business revenue and investment, not by the goverment, and therefore is NOT a public asset.
Question: In your car / truck / bridge scenario: Should an ambulance, police, anyone receive priority?
Question: Should a data/voice call for an emergency get any priority over the neighbor downloading movies or playing online games or...
@joseph2237 You make several good points. But that does not include the one about government building the internet. Just because the government spent the first dollar to develop the internet, does not mean they spent the billions of dollars that have been spent to build it. The government did not build our internet of today, and they certainly do not own it.