Lex 8256: The Law in Cyberspace Seminar

Net neutrality

    For a good background introduction to Internet architecture, read Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin's Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions. (For our purposes today, you can skip or skim the final section called "Solutions in the Architecture.") That should clarify some of my Sept. 10 explanation of TCP/IP, best-efforts routing, and the like.

    The concept of network neutrality is an amorphous one; the phrase has been used to mean a variety of different things. One type of "neutrality" problem might arise if a network provider also provides conventional broadcast or cable TV services, and wants to disadvantage its Internet-based competitors. It's easy to see how this might happen. Consider the decisions being made by a number of IPS's today to "cap" the amount of bandwidth a subscriber can use in a given period of time; read Comcast's new policy. What effect would that have on Internet-delivered video?  The bandwidth caps are supposed to address the problem of network congestion. The issue of network congestion, though, is a difficult one. (This widely-distributed video, thus, features Senator Stevens on Internet architecture. It's OK to laugh. Where does he believe the congestion is occurring?) Bandwidth caps aren't especially well-suited to addressing congestion issues -- read this and be prepared to tell me why. For some negative commentary on Comcast's decision, see, e.g., Comcast to dam and damn the Internet with usage caps; this blog entry; and especially this video.

    Here's a problem arising from a set of parallel incentives: What if an entity providing both telephone service and Internet access decides to block packets used for Internet telephony, in order to maximize its telephone business? That might be good for the provider, but it would be bad for the consumer (and for innovation). When Madison River Telephone Company did just that, the FCC (relying on its statutory authority over telephone companies) forced it into a consent agreement under which Madison River promised to stop the practice immediately, and agreed to make a $15,000 "voluntary payment" to the U.S. Treasury. Some time later, the FCC issued this Policy Statement.

    At its root, the concept of net neutrality relates to the ideas of the "stupid network" (or, more elegantly, the "end-to-end principle") that we discussed on September 10. A stupid network, governed by the end-to-end principle, will simply transmit bits indiscriminately; it doesn't have the intelligence to treat bits differently based on their origins, or their payload. It will allow any protocol-compliant hardware to be attached at the edges, and run any application. What are the consequences, though, if Internet architecture does not respect those principles? The worst-case scenario is one of Internet networks set up on the same (non-generative) terms as cell phone networks: Cell phone operators control what devices you can use on their network, running which applications. That allows them to make money from device and applications providers, but interferes with your choice and the openness of the network. Professor Tim Wu has urged neutrality as an Internet design principle. Read these very short pieces explaining his view: Network Neutrality FAQ and Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality.

    Read this interview with SBC CEO Edward Whitacre. What do you figure he's referring to when he says that Google should have to pay to use "my pipes" to reach his customers? Google, of course, pays for its connection to the Internet backbone; that's uncontroversial. Whitacre's argument here is that if the Google server farm is in California, and you pay SBC for DSL service here in Michigan, then SBC should be able to assess an additional charge on Google to transmit its packets from the Internet cloud along the last mile to your house; otherwise Google is unfairly using his pipes for free.  Do you agree?

    Read this copy of the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act", co-sponsored by Barack Obama. Would its passage be a good thing? Consider the following thoughts:
    Finally, check out this FCC opinion: In re Formal Complaint of Free Press and Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corp. or Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications (Aug. 20, 2008).  Some have argued that the FCC's order was beyond its power.  See, e.g., Barbara Esbin's critique and this comment from David Sohn.  What do you think?