Definition of Net Neutrality

The Heart of the Matter

Overview of the Net Neutrality Game

Outcome of the Game: Per-User vs. Per-Usage Internet Fees

A recent court decision struck a blow against net neutrality.  One account of the decision appeared in the WSJ, “Court Backs Comcast Over FCC on 'Net Neutrality’” by Amy Schatz:

A U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission overstepped when it cited cable-giant Comcast Corp. for slowing some Internet traffic on its network, dealing a blow to big Web commerce companies and other proponents of "net neutrality"…

At stake is how far the FCC can go to dictate the way Internet providers like AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. manage traffic on their multibillion-dollar networks…

Big Internet providers say ordinary Web users have no reason to fear restrictions on legal content. But companies like Google Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. that want to profit from offering more Web video and other high-bandwidth services are concerned that some day the big telecommunications companies will use their power to restrict certain kinds of Web content or charge more to deliver it at high speeds…

Consumer groups warned that the decision strips the FCC of authority to enforce net-neutrality rules and means that Comcast and other Internet providers can block Web sites anytime. They called for the FCC to take a tougher approach toward regulating Internet providers.

Definition of Net Neutrality

Cybertelecom.org provides the best description of the concept of neutrality, together with all the arguments, both pro and con, that I’ve been able to find.  It turns out that the issue is not as cut and dried as I had originally thought it was.  The following passage provides the essence of what net neutrality means; the passage was taken directly from the Cybertelecom.org website, though for the sake of readability (I was going to say “for brevity’s sake”, but it’s not actually brief, so I chose a different term), I’ve omitted the cited references:

"Network Neutrality" is the idea that Internet access providers should not discriminate with regard to what applications an individual can use, or the content an individual can upload, download, or interacted with over the network. Individuals acquiring services from Internet access providers should be able to use the applications and devices of their choice, and interact with the content of their choice anywhere on the Internet.

The concept of "Network Neutrality" is essentially traditional Common Carriage. Common carriers are carriers of goods, people, and information such as trains, planes, buses, and telephone companies. They cannot discriminate with regard to what they carry or where they carry it. Common carriage embodies the ideal that the efficient movement of goods and information is essential to our economy, our culture, and our nation, and therefore carriers must not discriminate or favor particular content or individuals.

Telecommunication carriers (those communications carriers that transport information back and forth) are one type of common carriers and have been classified as such for 100 years. This status was essentially inherited from telegraph companies. Forty years ago, the FCC initiated the Computer Inquiries which established the telephone network as an open platform over which computer networks could be constructed. The FCC also resolved the Carterfone proceeding, holding that individuals could attach devices (ie, faxes, modems) of their choice to the telephone network. These proceedings created an environment where any computer network could be constructed for any purpose and go anywhere.

Computer networks which are provisioned over telecommunications services, and in particular, Internet service providers, were classified as Information Services and did not have telecommunications regulations imposed upon them. Because these ISPs were interstate networks, they fell under the jurisdiction of the FCC and not state public utility commissions. ISPs hold the same role as telegraph and telephone carriers, carrying information central or critical to our society and nation.

This policy moved from the dial-up world to the broadband world. However, when the Internet moved from the dial-up world to the broadband world, it moved from something that was done over the common carrier network, to being the network. The question posed was whether, with this metamorphosis from some thing over the network, to being the network, the Internet would take on the common carrier status.

Advocates argued that cable modem service and DSL should be classified as telecommunications carriers so that the Computer Inquiries would apply. This is also known as the Open Access debate. Here the FCC policy of an open communications carrier shifted dramatically; the underlying communications network had always been a common carrier for 150 years. But when broadband Internet became the underlying network, the concept of common carriage was eliminated. The FCC concluded that these new communications networks were "information services" which did not need to be shared, did not fall under the Computer Inquiries, and did not fall under the non-discrimination provisions of title II of the Communications Act.

This is a move from an Internet access service classified as an information service provisioned over a telecommunications network classified as a common carrier - to a network where the whole thing top to bottom is an unregulated information service…

Opponents of Network Neutrality make a semantical attack on the term itself, arguing that it is a made up term for a made up problem; that there is no accepted definition for "network neutrality;" and that "it is just a slogan."

Proponents have put forth their definitions of "Network Neutrality;" these definitions are generally consistent. These different proponents generally put forward the following tenants of NN:

     • Individuals can use the applications of their choice and can access any other individual or resource on the Internet

     • Network service providers cannot discriminate with regard to the use of applications or access of end points on the network.

           ° Network service providers cannot block competitive applications or services in order to gain a competitive advantage

     • If network service providers offer a preferred service level, this preferred service level is offered and is available to others on the same terms and conditions.

     • Individuals at the edge of the network can innovate without seeking approval of the network service provider.

It is important, as this highlights, to distinguish between policy and implementation. Policy is why something is done; implementation is how something is done. If you review the literature of the proponents of Network Neutrality, there is rough consensus as to policy - network neutrality is about preventing a network with market power from discriminating - acknowledging the important role a network plays as a carrier of information. There may be differences in how different advocates envision implementation. The point here is - a difference of opinion concerning implementation is not the same as discord concerning the meaning of network neutrality.
 
With regard to "network neutrality" as a made up term, this is a good point. "Network neutrality" became a term of use in order to avoid uttering "common carriage." But "network neutrality" is consistent with, and fits well within, the jurisprudence of "common carriage." If Network Neutrality is characterized as a free floating arbitrary term, it is easy to define it with a strawman definition and shoot it down. If Network Neutrality is seen in its true context of common carriage, then this becomes a richer dialogue of history, jurisprudence, and policy objectives.