USA Today
This ad, from opponents, says net neutrality is aimed at a “problem that doesn’t exist.”
In the media and the halls of Congress, the Internet, phone and cable TV industries are raising a ruckus over “net neutrality.” What’s the squabble about? Here’s a look at both sides.
Net neutrality: To hear Google and Amazon.com tell it, the egalitarian Internet may soon be nomore. They contend that AT&T, Comcast and other big broadband providers are poised to rim theWeb with toll booths — destroying “Internet freedom” by charging them and smaller Internet companiesextra fees to zip their multimedia content to consumers on superfast broadband lanes. Thecontent providers are pushing for a new law to guarantee “network neutrality,” or equal treatmentfor all websites, even those that can’t afford to pay up.
The phone and cable giants in turn say the content providers simply want to stick consumers withthe bill for souping up the Web’s broadband arteries.
The “net neutrality” issue is being addressed ina larger communications reform bill before Congress. The House has passed a version, and the Senatecould vote on its own measure as early as September.USA TODAY telecommunications reporter Paul Davidson sorts out the arguments:
Proponents
Players: Google, Amazon, Microsoft, eBay and other large Web-content companies.
They want: Congress to prohibit phone and cable companies from charging premiums to Web-content providers to ensure fast delivery of broadband content, such as video or games, and from blocking or slowing access to websites. They say all content providers should get equal treatment (or network neutrality), especially since phone companies can guarantee speedy delivery of services such as video-on-demand.
Consumer impact: Letting broadband providers charge extra for faster content delivery would create a two-tiered Internet, net neutrality proponents say. While stalwarts such as Google could afford the extra fees, they argue that many upstarts could not, smothering innovation on the Internet and leaving consumers with fewer choices. Many fees would get passed to subscribers, who could end up paying both Internet service providers and content providers for faster speeds. Consumers should get the same service from all content suppliers, proponents say.
Political allies: A diverse coalition that includes Common Cause, Gun Owners of America and the Christian Coalition.
Tactics: They’re using advocacy groups with grass-roots-sounding names — called It’s Our Net and Save the Internet — to argue that the Internet’s democratic nature is at risk. They have largely used the Net itself to promote their cause with ads and e-mail campaigns.
Opponents
Players: AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth, Comcast, other large phone and cable broadband providers.
They want: Congress to take a hands-off approach. They say they’d never impede access to websites but should be able to offer websites premium-priced delivery services to offset the phone and cable companies’ multibillion-dollar investments in broadband. Consumers would benefit as movies are downloaded faster and live games are freed of pesky delays.
Consumer impact: Premium delivery offerings would not mean longer waiting times for consumers to access websites that choose not to pay the premiums, opponents say. The addition of a high-speed toll lane would merely give subscribers even faster service from the sites that do pay, they say. If phone and cable companies can’t charge content providers, they say they’d have to sock consumers with higher fees to manage increasingly congested broadband lines as multimedia content floods the Web.
Political allies: Internet pioneer David Farber, renowned computer scientist at the Carnegie Mellon University; technology entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban; League of United Latin American Citizens. Former Clinton White House press secretary Mike McCurry is co-chairman of Hands Off the Internet.
Hands Off the Internet, the opponents’ main advocacy group, says in print and broadcast ads that big online companies are trying to avoid paying their “fair share” to build the next-generation Internet. They want to “stick consumers” with the bill.
Up to Congress now
The telecom companies largely got their way in a bill passed by the House and a similar measure passed by the Senate Commerce Committee last month. Both measures authorize the Federal Communications Commission to enforce principles that say consumers are entitled to access any Internet content they wish. Neither bill bars broadband providers from charging websites extra for faster content delivery, nor do they explicitly prohibit slowing access to content. Senate Republicans barely defeated an amendment that would have set tough net neutrality standards, paving the way for a Democratic filibuster that makes the bill’s passage a long shot this year. The main provision of both bills would make it easier for phone companies to offer pay TV by eliminating or streamlining the local franchise process that cable companies must navigate. But the bills have major differences on other issues, further clouding their prospects in a short legislative session.