Understanding the Importance of Net Neutrality: FCC Ruling, Google & Verizon Deal & Halted Net Neutrality Talks

Net Neutrality is a hotly debated subject of recent months. With about half the country for and half against, it is time to understand what is going on, what exactly net neutrality is and why it is so important. Also known as Network Neutrality or Internet Neutrality, depending on who you are debating the issue with, Net Neutrality is the art of keeping all things equal on the Internet. What this means is that users should not have to be afraid of what they say, share, upload or download at any time; sort of like the saying "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas..."

Historical Net Neutrality Principles

People have historically used the Internet as an open forum with the freedom of speech behind them; the freedom and principles of Net Neutrality gave Internet users the right to use the Internet without ISP or governmental restrictions on any hardware used for communications on the Internet or on the mode of communication. Net neutrality was (is) the ultimate freedom of speech and the awesome "anything goes act." Internet access for all sans favoritism, sans discrimination.

For example, one Internet user pays for "tier two service" that grants him access to the Internet at 12 Mbit/s. Another person pays for the same service elsewhere. The Net Neutrality principle essentially allows the two to communicate over the Internet any way they see fit. Yes, this includes peer-to-peer file sharing, otherwise known as pirating software to most corporations. However, if the principles of Net neutrality were gone, ISPs and other corporations associated with the regulation of Internet service could stop file sharing, or theoretically cut off access to one user for any reason they saw fit. Without Net neutrality, any ISP or governmental body could theoretically discriminate against any customer they wanted and it would be legal .

Historical Debate: The FCC vs. Comcast Ruling

Net Neutrality is supposed to uphold the non-discrimination of users on the Internet, right? Then why did Comcast, a national cable and Internet giant, restrict their customers' access-and get away with it? The FCC handed down a ruling against their intentional throttling (slowing or restricting on some way) of their customers' bandwidth usage of peer-to-peer networks, such as BitTorrent.

This ruling in September of 2008 was a turning point in the Net Neutrality war because the FCC ruled their restrictions were illegal, essentially saying that pirating software in this way is legal (?). Comcast admitted to intentionally slowing down the peer-to-peer transfers of their customers, which is in direct violation of Net Neutrality principles and the FCC ruling of 2005, which prevents any discrimination at all.

Overturned: The FCC Ruled as Powerless?

However, Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned that ruling in April of 2010. He stated that the FCC, the ruling body concerning Internet and other forms of communication, has no bearing and no legal power to limit or regulate net neutrality. While the Judge said that the FCC cannot interfere in how an ISP manages their broadband networks, they can still help with Net Neutrality (again ??).

Many are wondering how it would be possible to do so since they have no power to manage the ISP networks. Without regulation on the networks, ISPs can slow or restrict downloading and uploading as they see fit, meaning they can do what they want without regard for the Net Neutrality principles-and the FCC can do nothing about it because they cannot "regulate net neutrality,"

The Catch 22 Third Way: Reclassify

The FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, stated that they are planning to continue with turning the principles of Net Neutrality into regulations and the FCC firmly believes and is "...firmly committed to promoting an open Internet..." On May 2 2010 in a letter to Mr. Genachowski from the Open Internet Coalition and others, they appealed for a fast regulation on "broadband transmission services." Additionally in this letter, they proposed a "Third way" to regulate the Net Neutrality issue; reclassifying the broadband transmission components.

Mr. Genachowski replied in a statement from the FCC on the same date that the FCC would seek out public comments and indeed recognized that the Third Way approach was the only legal and efficient thing to do in light of the Comcast ruling. In effect, the "Third Way" would not reclassify the entire broadband network, but simply reclassify the transmission component of broadband service as a "telecommunications component," thus allowing the FCC the authority to legally regulate and rule.

Current Problems

In early August 2010 in closed-door talks about setting some firmer rules and regulations regarding Net Neutrality with Google, Verizon, AT&T, Skype and the Open Internet Coalition, among others, the FCC was debating whether to reclassify the broadband transmission components as a "telecommunications Title II common-carrier service." While talks were slow going, they were going.

However, as of August 6 2010, the FCC Chief of Staff stated they could not come to an agreement on how to preserve the Internet's freedom and halted talks on Net Neutrality for the time being. However, according to some reports, the talks have halted because of an alleged hush deal made between Google and Verizon on the subject. The alleged deal struck allows Google special privileges on a Verizon network and allows Verizon to favor some traffic and limit broadband in certain situations, such as on mobile phones. This goes against all the open Internet principles of Net Neutrality's "no favoritism" clause.

Additionally, according to a report from the NY Times, Google will have the ability to pay for better, faster service, such as allowing YouTube to download faster. This means that Verizon can ensure that, if the "content creators" paid for the privilege of a faster network, they would receive first priority over those who have equal access. For example, if Google's YouTube or Picasa entities paid Verizon for the privilege of using the network, their customers would get better, faster service as compared to other companies who do not pay Verizon.

The Meaning of the Move

If Google and Verizon do in fact come to this agreement, it would be the end of Net Neutrality as we know it. Because Google and Verizon would pay for service, they would push off other customers who do not pay. This would initiate the "Tiered service" of which the FCC warned against and undermines the principles of Net Neutrality.

It is bad enough that free broadband is still a long way off. However, if Net neutrality is gone, it will mean that free broadband will become a fairy tale waiting to happen. It would also mean that people who have money continue to benefit from the Internet and those who cannot afford the "Tiered services" to gain preferential treatment will lose any freedoms they had at equal usage of the Internet. The biggest problem with Net Neutrality breaking down is that once again, those who have everything will keep everything, and those who are struggling will continue to struggle.

Think about this... How many freelance writers, web designers and others who work on the Internet and use it to maintain their livelihood and support their families do you know that can afford to pay for a premium service to attain equal access to the Internet? I know can't, can you?

Declan McCullagh, "FCC formally rules Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent was illegal," CNet News
Marguerite Reardon, "Is Net neutrality dead? (FAQ)," CNet News
Declan McCullagh, "Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality," CNet News
Stephen Musil, "Comcast Appeals FCC Traffic blocking Ruling," CNet News
Maggie Shiels,"Net neutrality talks stall in US," BBC News Technology
Phil Goldstein, "FCC's net neutrality compromise meetings grind on," Fierce Wireless
Edward Wyatt, "Google and Verizon Near Deal on Web Pay Tiers," NY Times
Todd Shields, "Google, Verizon Said to Strike Deal on Web Traffic Rules," NY Times
FCC 09-93: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking