« FCC Seeks Comment on Our Post-Disaster Communications Petition: | Main | pulver.com PARTY at GLOBALCOMM 2006: June 6th in Chicago »
April 11, 2006
Guest Blogger: Jonathan Tregear - Implications of the Net Neutrality Debate that aren't Being Considered
Thanks Jeff for giving me the opportunity to provide a perspective of the network neutrality debate that to my knowledge hasn't been considered. While there has been much debate about the desire by telecommunications and cable network service providers to charge Internet communications and media service providers differentially to access "enhanced" network services, the debate has been narrowly focused on large Internet media service providers and as long as the debate has been framed in this context it's been an us vs. them debate between large corporations (and their lobbyists) and it's difficult to feel too sorry for either group. However, Internet media technologies have broadly expanded the definition of who can be a communications and media service provider and this "democratization" means that not only are the Googles and Yahoos of the world media service providers, but also universities; health care institutions; libraries; and federal, state, and local government are also potential (or actual) Internet media service providers.
For example, the University of New Mexico (where I work as an analyst for communications and collaboration technologies at the Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center) currently provides Internet based media services using the identical media technologies and providing similar media services that the telecommunications and cable network service providers would like to charge extra for. We are also using IP videoconferencing and voice over IP services that the network providers would also like to charge extra for. We use these technologies to do things like support distance education between faculty and rural students, support academic research collaboration between UNM and researchers worldwide, and to support remote telemedicine services to rural patients throughout New Mexico. So, the University of New Mexico is a media service provider.
All of these services would benefit greatly from "enhanced" network services. Will we and all of the other public institutions that need these services begin to receive additional bills from the network service providers for "enhanced" network services? Eventually, will our students and patients begin to receive additional charges on their broadband access bills for "enhanced" educational or "enhanced" health care services especially in the case of services like videoconferencing where they also will be media service providers?
As another example, I note that the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology delivers its hearings live and on-demand from its website. So the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee is a media service provider. Internet delivery of those hearings would also benefit from "enhanced" network services in the ability to stream larger and clearer versions with improved audio. Will the Senate Commerce Committee start receiving a bill for "enhanced" network services from the network service providers?
Until now the debate has proceeded as if institutions like universities and other public institutions don't have a dog in this fight. Well, we all do. The federal government, through media services provided by committees like the Senate Commerce Committee and through other sites like NASA, is a media service provider. Not just Google. The Senate Commerce committee should ask its internet service provider how much they pay for the bandwidth to stream committee hearings now. They should also ask the telecommunications and cable network service providers how much they will have to pay in addition to this for access to "enhanced" network services.
The likely response from the telecommunications and cable network service providers is that we are small providers and they have no intention of blocking our Internet access. That is not the same thing as gaining access to "enhanced" network services that they will provide for a fee to preferred providers or for their own services. I also note that recent statements by telecommunications and cable network service providers carefully frame their commitment to continued unfettered access to the Internet as the ability to go to any site on the Internet. Well, the Internet isn't just about surfing websites anymore. Those statements say nothing about unrestricted access to Internet based communications and media services, especially those services that are likely to compete with services network providers intend to provide themselves.
As long as public institutions and their constituents are willing to settle for marginal video and substandard audio everything will be fine in their view and given the current status of the debate that might be the best case scenario. Speaking for myself, that's not good enough. I work with physician's who would benefit greatly from the availability of high quality video conferencing services that would allow them to examine and consult with patients. I also work with faculty who up until now have had no way to conduct a group voice conversation (not to mention a video conference) with rural students or collaborate with colleagues in foreign countries other than by paying prohibitive voice conferencing or international calling charges.
From my understanding of the current status of the debate, access to enhanced network services for public institutions and their constituents is now about to disappear in the name of not "interfering" with the Internet. Access to "enhanced" network service will be limited to those able to pay right of carriage fees that are beyond the capacity to pay for either public institutions or especially their constituents. If that is the case, these innovative educational, health care, and public media services will probably just disappear. A democratization of access was and is the promise of the Internet and that is about to be replaced by a closed network that, while it will use Internet networking technologies, won't be the Internet at all.
Tags: Net Neutrality, Jonathan Tregear
(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)
Share this post:
Digg |
del.icio.us |
Reddit |
Newsvine |
Google Bookmark |
Yahoo MyWeb |
StumbleUpon
Posted by jeff on April 11, 2006 06:49 AM | Permalink
Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos
Comments
And don't enhanced services already exist? I pay more for cable internet than my parents pay for their dial-up, and I get a better service because of it. Law firms, government agencies, and other entities pay more to set up their own networks to ensure the efficient flow of data, and as far as I can tell the world hasn't fallen apart.
Posted by: The Decider at April 19, 2006 10:50 PM
I do not like discussion that implies that somehow people are entitled to better products for no more money. That just doesn't make sense. You couldn't go to a car dealership and get an Escalade for the price of Neon, so why should you be able to get "enhanced" internet for the price of the normal internet. Besides, like lessgov said, the market would not allow such evils as you foretell to occur.
Posted by: pkp646 at April 19, 2006 11:13 AM
I'm with Darnell and lessgov and I don't see a crisis coming that the market can't solve on its own...
Posted by: saraM at April 16, 2006 07:36 PM
I have a couple of comments. First, I'm not sure why you would put "enhanced" in quotes. The service you pay for will be better than that which is not paid for. That said, if companies aren't willing to pay for better service, then consumers won't get to view their sites. This will make consumers run away from service providers that substantially limit their service.
Perhaps the free market system we have now isn't perfect, but it has done well to enable the success of major companies like Google, who never would have thrived had the government decided to over-regulate the Internet.
Posted by: lessgov at April 15, 2006 02:19 PM
Jonathan, you sell yourself and others short. I believe that there is no way anyone can put a rein on innovation and experimentation, and that the net will continue to expand and serve everyone as it evolves. Just because there might be a first class "section," which I liken to VPN, to serve the needs of IPTV does not mean that email will move more slowly. You imply that you now have access to "enhanced" network services and that your access to those services is "about to disappear." If you indeed have a privileged position for which you or the University does not pay, I simply cannot believe that you won't be able to find a way to retain it. You're too smart not to do that.
Posted by: Darnell Dunwitty at April 14, 2006 07:12 PM