Network neutrality laws needed
p2p news / p2pnet: New laws are needed to stop US broadband providers from blocking or retarding user access to some kinds of Net content, says a study.
"The outcome of this legislative process will largely determine the future of the Internet for consumers – a major group of stakeholders who have thus far been underrepresented on the issue," it states.
Commissioned by Free Press and the Consumer Federation of America, the Importance of the Internet and Public Support for Network Neutrality says the stage was set by the recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision to eliminate the network owners’ obligation to provide communications services with nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions.
"The result is that broadband network owners are no longer required to allow Internet service providers to use their high speed broadband networks in order to offer competitive broadband service," it states. "Not only does that effectively eliminate competition in broadband services that has resulted in lower consumer costs in the past, but it also gives network owners the power to discriminate against content or services that their subscribers access via the Internet, such as Internet telephone service, video streaming and other applications, and even content that may compete with the owner’s own offerings."
As a result, "a controversy has flared up in Congress over legislation to ensure principles of ‘network neutrality,’ i.e. the operation of the network in a manner that does not impede, block or slow the flow of content, services or applications or impair the functioning of devices connected to the network."
In national random sample telephone surveys in November, 2005, "We found that approximately two-thirds of the respondents use the Internet from home," says the report.
Surfers were asked how important the Net was to them; their views on some of the recent actions that would affect their access; and, about what private sector or public policy responses would be appropriate.
Their answers?
- Two-thirds reported it is important for personal communications and researching products;
- More than half said it is important for getting news; and
- About 40% cited online banking, e-commerce, and retrieving government information as significant uses.
Consumers expressed a great deal of concern about discriminatory practices of communications network operators.
- For example, without statutory or regulatory requirements to the contrary, broadband network owners are allowed to require consumers to pay for the owner’s Internet service just to access the ISP they do prefer – effectively paying for Internet access twice. Nearly 90 percent of Internet users regarded being forced to pay for an ISP they do not use as a serious concern, with 79% finding it a very serious concern.
- Similarly, network operators might prevent their broadband subscribers from accessing an alternative ISP altogether. Almost 80% said being denied access to their preferred ISP was a serious concern (69% very serious).
- In addition, without requirements to the contrary, network owners can also block or impair consumer access to Internet content providers while providing favorable speeds and access to their own or to affiliated Internet content and services. Over two-thirds of respondents identified network discrimination that blocked or slowed service as a serious concern (over half saw it as a very serious concern).
Consumers also expressed strong support for action to prevent these problems. A large majority agrees with the principle of network neutrality and supports the passage of a law to ensure that the communications networks are operated according to this principle.
Almost three quarters (72%) agree that cable and telephone companies should adhere to the principle of operating their networks in a neutral manner.
Less than half (47%) believe these companies will voluntarily refrain from blocking or impairing services and applications.





January 22nd, 2006 at 1:44 am
I work for a major United States telecommunications company that provides traditional telephone service as well as high speed DSL service. Yes, it is a RBOC (Regoinal Bell Operating Company) that was created during the AT&T breakup in 1984. The chairman/CEO of my company stated that he wants the freeloaders like Microsoft, Vontage, Google, Amazon, E-Bay, etc to pay for their use of our network. I see several significant problems with this.
Consider the following scenario:
Lets say that http://www.microsoft.com is hosted entirely off of Level 3’s network. Let’s also say that Google is hosted off UUNet’s network. EBay is hosted off Agis, Amazon is hosted off Verizon, and Vontage is hosted off Sprint. Now we have a subscriber who is accessing these sites via Earthlink. Remember, I know that this isn’t actually the case, this is for an example.
Now, you have the Earthlink subscriber who accesses the Microsoft web site. That connection must pass through not only Earthlink, but also Level 3’s network to get to it’s destination. Now, what some ISPs want to do, say like Earthlink, want to do is to charge Microsoft for the traffic that the Earthlink generated to the Microsoft website. Remember, Microsoft already pays Level 3 for their own Internet connection.
Is it fair that a website operator who does not have any connection to a particular ISP pay that ISP so that their users can access the website? I say no, and it seems that alot of other people think the same way. We need network nutrality laws to protect the internet and keep it the way it is today.
Here’s a few links to keep you busy:
http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,124403,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060116/1028205_F.shtml
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060116/0918258_F.shtml
Furthermore, don’t you find it interesting that the cable companies are keeping quiet on this issue?