The net neutrality debate has flared back up, pitting internet behemoths against telcos, ISPs and politicians. Here's the latest.
The net neutrality debate was already heating back up when, in December, a Canadian ISP essentially hacked Google, forcing the biggest name in the internet to flex its muscle for the cause.
Just before Christmas, a screen shot appeared on blogs and publications around the net that shows a Google homepage partly obstructed by a Rogers Communications message warning users who are close to reaching their monthly bandwidth capacity of a potential penalty.
Rogers confirmed it is experimenting with the technique as a customer notification system. "We're trying different things, and we'll test customer response," Rogers' spokesperson Taanta Gupta told Wired for an article in which the publication called the incident "Exhibit A" in the need for net neutrality legislation.
Wired obviously isn't the only one up in arms.
"We are concerned about these reports," a Google spokesperson said in an email to ComputerWorld Canada. "As a general principle, we believe that maintaining the internet as a neutral platform means that carriers shouldn't be able to interfere with web content without users' permission. We are in the process of contacting the relevant parties to bring this to a quick resolution."
The Rogers' incident is just the latest in a string of actions that have some people advocating for legal intervention.
A dangerous pattern
Late last year, allegations surfaced that cable giant Comcast Cable was blocking file-sharing data. A California man filed suit against the company, arguing that its secret use of technology to limit peer-to-peer applications, such as BitTorrent, violates federal computer fraud laws, their user contracts and anti-fraudulent advertising statutes.
The Federal Communications Chairman Kevin Martin announced at the Consumer Electronics Show earlier this month that the agency will look into the complaint. Comcast reportedly "welcomes the inquiry."
Comcast argues that such actions are necessary to manage traffic. File-sharers only make up a small proportion of the overall subscriber base but use up most of the available bandwidth and threaten to clog the system.
But this excuse doesn't hold water for other events that have fueled the fire.
Two years earlier, in what might have started the recent fray, Vancouver-based Telus briefly blocked access to a website run by an employee union during a labor dispute.
Since then, over the past few years, broadband carriers in North America have:
- Blocked emails critical of a pay-to-send email plan. (Time Warner/AOL, 2006)
- Prevented the abortion rights group Naral Pro-Choice America from getting a "short code" that would allow the group to send text messages to supporters. (Verizon, 2007)
- Cut off the webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just when lead singer Eddie Veder was critical of U.S. President George Bush. (AT&T, 2007)
To top off all of this, Nemertes Research came out with a report in 2007 stating that the internet was in danger of being overloaded by 2010, due to the rising demand for bandwidth-clogging applications such as file-sharing and video.
Currently, cable and telephone companies foot the bill for the infrastructure. And some of these service providers say online behemoths such as Google, Amazon and eBay are basically getting a free ride by hogging available bandwidth to deliver their services.
As a result, carriers have proposed charging extra for prioritized customers and premium services. In fact, earlier this month Time Warner announced it is experimenting with charging heavy users in Beaumont, Texas more money based on how much they download. Obviously, content providers such as Google have voiced their opposition. But the telcos are fighting back.
"We shouldn't let the debate on infrastructure be determined by people who aren't spending a dime on infrastructure," Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president of external affairs for AT&T, said at a Los Angeles forum on the topic, where California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger lent his support. "We aren't proposing anything that is remotely disadvantageous to Google."
But what about for smaller content providers? Net neutrality proponents fear that such proposals will create a "two-tier" internet. And that would be bad for everyone.
Next page >>