Cheat Sheet: Net neutrality

What's this net neutrality fuss all about?
An aggressive catfight about who should control the internet or at least the US portion of it is taking place in Washington. A new communications bill, called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (Cope) Act of 2006, has just been introduced and, among other things, appears to let internet service providers treat some websites differently than others, effectively creating a fast lane on the internet.

So where did the term come from?
Democrat congressmen and senators, believing that it will create a new form of 21st century monopoly and censorship, tabled an amendment that would enshrine "net neutrality". On 8 June, The House of Representatives passed the Cope Act while kicking out the net neutrality amendment with a majority 'no', roughly split along party lines.

Is it really wrong to allow preferred routing?
In some ways it makes sense. More and more content is distributed over the internet and we want it to work when we want it. The big telcos want to offer triple-play services (voice, data, video) over broadband with the service quality of cable but with a much richer content mix. They argue that to do this they need the right to streamline bits through the chaotic internet.

What's wrong with the internet now?
Currently, the internet exists on a 'best effort' basis and no sites, in theory at least, are classified as more important than others. (There are many reasons why, in practice, that is not the case but that's a different story... ) The telcos argue that in television, radio and press, distributors have always been closely entwined with content creators, so why should the internet be any different? What's more, network providers say it is unfair and unnecessary to have the government interfere in the free market.

But the internet is supposed to be different, isn't it?
Indeed it is, say those in the pro-net neutrality camp. The internet is like no other mass medium because it is so chaotic and few companies can exert control over content and the means of accessing it. Net neutrality is at the heart of the internet's diversity.

And if we change that...
Well, take that diversity away and the web will look like a high street and its chain stores. Half a dozen companies will control access to all websites in the world and can extort content producers and retailers for delivering their pages to customers. Voices both big and small will be strangled. Content providers will be censored by capitalism, choice will be lost and the right to free speech banished forever. Or so the pro-net neutrality camp argues.

So how is this playing out in the US political sphere?
The Republicans and Democrats have taken sides. Republicans argue there should be no governmental legislation ensuring neutrality while Democrats believe the freedom of speech and equality of access must be enshrined. It's a mirror of their economic beliefs: the right believes in laissez-faire capitalism while the centre-left supports free enterprise tempered by governmental intervention to prevent monopolies.

But aren't the politicians going a bit over the top?
You could say that. Democratic congressman Ed Markey said the vote would change "the internet for the rest of eternity".

That's quite principled. Are you sure it's nothing to do with payback?
Funnily enough, since the Republican Bush Administration came to power, the diversity and competitiveness of US telecoms industry has fallen into steep decline, while new mega-mergers seem to pass without muster.

Are you suggesting that telcos are influencing government?
Well now you come to mention it, telcos are major players in Washington lobbying circles. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the communications industry spent $764m lobbying Washington between 1998 and 2004, almost double the amount spent by oil and gas companies. A further $145m was invested in political donations. And telcos AT&T, SBC and Verizon are among the biggest donators to political parties.

And they've been effective?
Since the Bush Administration came to power, the Baby Bells have successfully lobbied to prevent the US local loop being opened up to the extent it has in Europe, and now also appear to have won the battle over net neutrality.

So where does Silicon Valley stand on this?
It's divided. Amazon, eBay, Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft have all made very public statements about the need for net neutrality and for the amendment to stand. eBay CEO Meg Whitman emailed over a million users to call for their support.

And the dissenters?
3M, Cisco, Corning, Qualcomm and other equipment manufacturers declined to support their Silicon Valley dot-com brethren in favour of the infinitely wealthier telcos. Website infrastructure doesn't cost anywhere near as much as broadband infrastructure, so router vendors have acknowledged which side of the bread is buttered.

Wow...
Yup, it has become a David vs Goliath, New World vs the Old, triumph of the spirit vs the tyranny of oppression type battle to the death.

So it's lights out for the internet?
Well, if we were being really cynical we could say that it's been going corporate since 1996 and this is a final nail in the coffin of the independent internet. However, there is one last glimmer of hope. The Cope Act now goes to the Senate for ratification, and the 'save the internet' coalition hopes the net neutrality amendment may be more warmly received there than in the House. Don't hold your breath though - there's quite a lot of Republicans in the Senate too.

I'm assuming this will affect the UK...
Right now it's hard to tell what impact this will have in Europe in the long term.

Initially it will be a very US-centric issue as the fast lanes would be created in access networks only. But if the business model of end-to-end ownership of the access pipe and content proves successful, Europe's telcos will want to replicate it. Ofcom has not offered any guidance about whether it thinks net neutrality can or should be enforced.

An Ofcom spokesperson has implied that if a two-tiered internet was created by telcos, it would not look favourably on access providers having the right to block content outright.