For a phrase whose meaning is still disputed, this idea has generated a lot of buzz and could generate some very flawed legislation.

by Alex Goldman ISP-Planet Managing Editor [March 2, 2007]

Not every advocate of Net Neutrality is working for the same thing. Wikipedia acknowledges this in its definition of the term:

Precise definitions of network neutrality vary widely, but a data network which has no restrictions on what kinds of equipment can be attached, has no restrictions on whether or how equipment can communicate, and does not degrade one set of communications for the sake of another; would be an example of a completely neutral network.

Every ISP owner knows that there is no such thing as a purely neutral network. ISPs need to attach anti-virus and anti-spam filters, and as those devices become obsolete, ISPs are looking to deep packet inspection and traffic shaping. Some ISPs now examine everything users do and prohibit anything from obsessive game playing to spamming. Some politicians want ISPs to look even closer, to search for child porn or internet gambling or to reroute all VoIP phone calls (or one percent of VoIP phone calls) through the DoJ in Washington, D.C.

Framing the issue
The phone and cable companies want to present the debate as one between reputable established businesses on the one hand and young upstart Silicon Valley billionaires on other, but as Cory Doctorow of BoingBoing commented, "There's no rebutting this, it's just a lie."

Doctorow added:

Net neutrality is about whether telcos get to charge you for your DSL, [charge those providing you with] internet services for their DSL, and then each carrier gets to shake down each of those already-paying services for even more money for "guaranteed delivery." Talk about corporate welfare! These greedheads already get the priceless government-granted rights-of-way into our homes (imagine if every time a wire crossed a property line, the telco had to negotiate with the owner). If they can't make enough profits with that enormous gift from the public coffers, let someone else take over their wires.

Most independent ISPs, those that rely on a telco or CLEC for backhaul, would not receive any money from content providers in this anticipated shakedown. However, those building municipal networks, wireless networks, or even fiber networks do like what the phone and cable companies are saying and want in on the act. It isn't just that there would be more money. There are real costs in the changing internet.

A few weeks ago, we were shown data from Ellacoya, a filtering and bandwidth shaping company (see Ellacoya's Data) that showed that users are utilizing more and more of the bandwidth available to them. In the long term, we expect the oversubscription ratio (number of users who can be served over the same pipe) to trend towards one—each user will require their own pipe. This is a big change from dialup, when ISPs could run a 10:1 user to modem ratio (see Pricing Your Services).

Yes there are costs. . .
So the ISPs do have new costs to recoup. But if that's the case, prices should be rising, and they're not rising. We described why prices are not rising earlier this week, in the article Editorial: We Need Usage-Based Pricing. The phone companies set internet prices low to eliminate competition. Now that competition is virtually gone, especially in residential internet service, the phone and cable companies are complaining about their costs.

They are also not delivering what they advertise. They are engaging in secret warfare against so-called bandwidth hogs, those users who actually use unlimited bandwidth as if it were an unlimited service, those who wish to use what was promised to them but will never be delivered. The fight can be viewed in detail on BroadbandReports (search keyword "caps").

Instead of enforcing a vague idea called "net neutrality," the FTC and Congress should clamp down on false advertising, prohibiting false promises of unlimited bandwidth and also cracking down on fake prices in ads (see, for example, DSL Prime: Pricing).

. . . but there are also lies and bribes
Bringing an open market into internet service would be good for innovation and good for America and good for small business. But it might make life difficult for the kind of big business that lives off of government-granted monopolies, tax exceptions, and payoffs to politicians.

Going after the corporate greedheads that Doctorow complained about would be popular with voters and good for the economy. But we know of no politician or party that's ready to do it.

Unless the debate gets specific, the full-fledged lies will continue to have an advantage in the debate on net neutrality. For now, we expect the politician-payers and their fake grassroots groups (known as "astroturf groups") to win the Net Neutrality debate in D.C.

Such an outcome would punish innovators like Google and eBay, and reward the telecom industry's dinosaurs for their lobbying efforts.

— End