Internet Regulation Up in the Air
Internet
Cape Cod Times
Paul Crocetti
Boston University Washington News Service
October 18, 2006
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 – Internet content providers may have to pay increasing amounts of money to get onto the web, depending upon the outcome of a complex, little-noticed, but growing, legislative fight.
At issue is telecommunications companies’ growing practice of charging Internet content providers for their Web sites to run at high speed. Historically, Web sites have run at the same speed.
Critics, who favor what they call “net neutrality,” say that the practice of charging to make Web sites run faster is discriminatory and could have a chilling effect on Internet commerce.
Advocates argue that market-based competition is better for consumers than the government-regulated kind.
Service providers already make billions of dollars a year from content providers, in addition to the $20 billion they make from consumers for broadband access, according to Free Press, a nonpartisan advocacy group. The current proposed legislation leaves it open for service providers to charge content providers more.
“It would affect anyone putting up content, like bloggers,” said Craig Aaron, communications director for Free Press. “There’s no way the little guy is getting in the fast lane.” Aaron works in the Washington office of Free Press, whose main office is in Northampton, Mass. Free Press is the coordinator of SaveTheInternet.com Coalition, a pro-“net neutrality” group made up of organizations and individuals.
The battle has been joined over legislation, likely to come before Congress next year, that would overhaul the nation’s telecommunications laws.
The current version of the bill does not directly address the issue. That legislation, sponsored by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who chairs the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which oversees telecommunications, takes the position that the Federal Communication Commission’s current “net neutrality” principles are sufficient, according to the Senate Commerce Committee.
The commission states that users should be able to access Internet content of their choice, run online applications and services of their choice, connect their choice of devices, and have fair competition among network, application, service and content providers.
Major Internet providers, such as Verizon, agree that the status quo is sufficient to deal with the issue.
“Internet legislation is unnecessary,” said Richard Colon, a spokesman for Verizon in Southeastern Massachusetts. “Quite honestly, there is no problem to solve.”
NETCompetition.org, a group that represents broadband companies, is also against any new legislation.
“The Internet backbone has always had tiers,” said Scott Cleland, chairman of the group. “Dialup and various speeds of broadband are based on price. The marketplace creates different niches. ‘Net neutrality’ proposes one-size fits all legislation.”
But proponents of “net-neutrality” legislation argue it is necessary to preserve competition and prevent companies from discriminating.
“If the phone or the cable companies discriminate against content, based on those who pay them most, then as consumers we won’t have anywhere else to turn,” said Aaron.
Lack of “net neutrality” would kill competition, according to Theresa Martin, executive director of the Cape Cod Technology Council, a nonprofit group that promotes technology in Southeastern Massachusetts.
“It would stifle lots of innovation, especially with people with no money yet,” she said, adding that sites like YouTube.com would not have been able to start up if they had to pay extra. “It would also stifle communication, for those who couldn’t pay for faster access to it.”
On May 2, U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a “net neutrality” bill that would have prevented “companies from downgrading and discriminating regarding Internet access and services,” according to a Markey press release.
On June 8, the House voted not to include Markey’s bill in the telecommunications overhaul. Not addressing the issue, Aaron said, sank the telecommunications legislation.
“It’s stalled in a Republican Congress,” said Israel Klein, a spokesman for Markey. “Hopefully in a Democratically-controlled Congress, it’ll be different.”
Aaron agreed, saying that the GOP leadership has “sided with the phone companies.”
The legislation would influence Internet providers on the Cape, Aaron said.
“In terms of broadband service providers, there is a direct effect,” he said. “The choices of broadband come from the phone or the cable companies. That’s why they’re pushing this. They control 98 percent of the market. They’re using that power to undercut the competition, in terms of content.”
Content providers may find themselves having to pay for Internet work.
Another concern is whether consumers will have to pay more in the end.
“It depends on who you talk to,” said Martin, at the Cape Cod Technology Council. “Anytime you allow people to charge along the food chain, ultimately consumers will pay more. Or do they pay by less access, or lost opportunities?”
Pat Murphy, the sales director at Cape.com Internet Services, said it may come down to Martin’s last point.
“It potentially could limit the free flow, the ability to get to any Web site freely,” he said.
###
