blog

Network Neutrality is a complicated issue. At its core, however, proponents suggest legislation requiring that Internet access providers not give priority to any traffic on the net, and serve packets on a first-come, first-served basis. Opponents of Network Neutrality say that smart networks give priority to certain kinds of traffic, i.e. faster connections for government, mail, health, etc., and slower traffic for peer-to-peer transactions, downloading, etc.

In terms of transportation, those who choose to move faster take toll roads and use air travel. Those who do not are left to their own devices; foot travel, bicycle, transit, and freeways. Exceptions exist for emergency services. Police, ambulance, and fire may all exceed legal speed limits.

There are many natural comparisons one can draw between roads and Internet infrastructure. However, the biggest difference is that Internet infrastructure is typically owned by private companies, whereas most roads are owned by taxpayers. Roads exist to serve the greater good, and since nearly everyone uses them, their cost is shared. In the same way, the Internet serves a greater good; the spread of information, independent news, and funny videos.

For being mostly privately owned, it’s amazing the Internet is still as neutral as it is! What if all of our roads were privately owned? Would they be in better or worse shape? Would rural access roads even exist!? So far, all of these telecommunications companies have played nice, building networks and using technology that works together. And the Internet works in such a way that small businesses can contribute, too.

But now, where a handful of companies serve millions of customers at once, limiting access could affect a great deal of people. A tiered system of access could make conducting business more expensive for industries depending on high speed Internet, and impossible to afford for small businesses or the proprietors of small websites. But would that be a smart move for an ISP?

Some argue that network neutrality legislation is unnecessary, and I am inclined to agree with them. What would be the point of limiting access to a tool whose power derives from its universality? Anyone limiting access limits the scope of the tool.

The problem of Mr. Brownback’s answer to my query is not that he opposes network neutrality. It’s that he pits Online Content Providers against Access Providers. These are not competitors, and in fact, have been working together since the start of this technology. I pay for Internet access to publish a blog, just like I’d pay for ink and paper if I wanted to print a magazine. The Internet exists because people use it as a means to an end – to publish, communicate, and share. It is not the proprietary invention of a corporation or individual. Any regulation of the Internet should weigh in favor of its users and content makers.

But Mr. Brownback’s letter begs the question that should be asked of our lawmakers: what is the most important part of the Internet – the content, or the cables?

Pay close attention to the parts I set in bold.

———————————————-

Dear Mr. Fundenberger:

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding Internet neutrality. There is no better guide for making tough decisions than hearing from the people whom I serve.

Broadband Internet availability is changing the face of American communications. Such high speed access to the Internet spurs increased investment, choice, and innovation in the telecommunications marketplace. Broadband deployment also transforms the quality of life for all Americans – for instance, with broadband capability, rural consumers will be able to access long-distance learning, on-demand entertainment, and tele-medicine for the first time.

As you may know, several groups have sought legislation to regulate or even prohibit fees that may be sought by broadband companies from content providers for the high-speed transmission of content over the Internet. I believe that this so-called ‘network neutrality’ legislation would be anything but neutral, punishing broadband access providers for innovation and competition. In fact, it is due to the absence of heavy-handed government regulation that the Internet has grown and innovated freely and rapidly.

Moreover, broadband access providers — our nation’s telephone, cable television, and wireless companies — are spending billions of dollars to deploy broadband, and have plans to spend billions more on the next generation of broadband networks. These investments include new technologies that will greatly improve everyone’s Internet experience, further empowering our ability to use it for entertainment, political, religious, and educational purposes. Given the investment by broadband providers in creating and maintaining Internet infrastructure, it is reasonable for them to request that content providers pay their fair share for the services they use.

Innovation and competition, unmarred by excessive government regulation, have created a vibrant Internet for all Americans. In this context, network neutrality would penalize broadband access providers for making major improvements to the Internet and would reward online content providers who demand regulation in order to tip the scales of Internet competition in their favor. Rest assured that as this issue continues to be addressed in the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,

Sam Brownback
United States Senator