‘Net Neutrality’ Principle
Let’s push for Open Document Format the way Massachusetts does.
February 16, 2006
The egalitarian world of the Internet is inclined for a new challenge when AOL and Yahoo, two of the world’s largest email service providers, recently proposed to charge a fee for the delivery of spam-free emails along the originating and destination route.
According to media reports, AOL and Yahoo will introduce a system that would guarantee speedier delivery to companies that pay between 0.25 and one US cent for each message. While AOL and Yahoo would still accept email from senders who do not pay for preferential treatment, the business bias is that the paid messages would bypass spam filters and other barriers which strip off pictures and other images, enabling the emails to land more quickly in in-boxes.
Are we seeing the prospect of a two-tier Internet from now? Notably, AOL and Yahoo’s proposed new business model came in the wake of intensifying debates on the future of the web as the US Congress prepares to institute the first major update of telecommunications legislation since the birth of the Internet.
The centre of debates is on the principles of Internet Neutrality. It is the principles that had been followed through over the last decade of commercial Internet, under which data has been disseminated without discrimination or preference ever since the birth of the World Wide Web.
Therefore, the notion of a premium email delivery service on the Internet, like the one AOL and Yahoo proposed, has been resisted by advocates of "Net Neutrality", notably those from the US.
Here’s a recap of the development in the US, the Motherland of Internet. In August 2005, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) decided that telephone companies are no longer required to open up their broadband lines to rival Internet service providers. The FCC decision was made after the US Supreme Court freed cable companies from similar requirements in June. The net result was that DSL and cable modem operators now found themselves competing on a level playing field, with the pure-play Internet operators crying for mercy.
Political clouts came into play. At the insistence of two Democrats on the commission, the FCC adopted a series of principles that favour Internet users, Internet companies and Internet innovators. The principles, which are widely known as ‘Internet Neutrality’, provides the grounding to keep the Internet open in an era when access in the US is dominantly controlled by the cable and telephone duopoly. ‘Internet Neutrality’ is revelled because it should (read my lips!) guarantee the right of users to access all legal content and services on the Web.
This brings us to the key hurdle faced by VoIP operators in access restrictions to certain geographical sites, a prickly issue for the ‘Baby Bells’ in small regions in the US – yes, we have a parallel right here in Malaysia.
Here’s the case. Earlier last year, a small regional telephone company blocked its DSL customers from using Vonage, an Internet telephone service. The FCC intervened swiftly and forced the telephone company to restore Vonage access.
The incident was seen as having restored the FCC's authority to police a content-based discrimination. Besides, it illustrates the importance of upholding the Internet-neutrality principles.
Interestingly too, big names like Apple, Amazon, eBay and Microsoft etc also bandied together to lobby for such Internet Neutrality rules. The implication is far–reaching.
Imagine, without the Internet Neutrality principles being adopted, a broadband service provider could ally with a search engine and, perhaps, a music-download service to forbid its customers from accessing rival services. Competition will be dead, and the vibrant dynamics of open market and innovation will be stifled.
But there is one setback. The ‘Internet Neutrality’ principles do not have the full force of law behind them. To make the principles work, a knowledgeable legislative body and a no-nonsense enforcement agency are critically required so as to consumer interests. This is no easy task. Even in progressive countries like the US, as has been illustrated earlier, if the FCC fails to do its part, the Congress will have to step in to ensure that all Internet users remain free to access all the content and services that are flourishing on the Web.
Internet content providers are already under fire from telecommunications firms, who are seeking to ensure that their profits - as the providers of the pipeline - keep pace with the internet's expansion into entertainment and commerce.