Net Neutrality is far from Dead

Created by Wendy Wigen (EDUCAUSE) on September 10, 2007

(The following is a response to questions asked by a reporter from ESchoolNews)

What are EDUCAUSE's thoughts concerning the Justice Department’s statement on Sept. 6—that Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic? The department said it supports this fee because Net Neutrality could prevent investment and innovation. Do you agree? Disagree? Why or why not?

EDUCAUSE disagrees with the DoJ position taken in their Sept. 6 statement regarding Net Neutrality. While realizing that White House Administration has dictated this position and the leadership at both the DoJ and the FTC are simply following their instructions, we were hopeful that the agencies would have considered many of the well thought out, and independent, arguments for Net Neutrality legislation. Allowing network operators to charge fees for “priority” treatment goes against the basic principle of openness that has been a part of the Internet since its conception Our members feel strongly that the low barrier to entry for innovative applications and services, coupled with the ability for users to “go anywhere, anytime” is primarily responsible for the Internet becoming the economic powerhouse it is today. Consumers and content providers should be allowed to buy better service by doing what they already can do (when it is available)… purchase a larger, faster connection. By allowing certain content providers to “purchase” priority service that the network owners will control through deep packet inspection opens up a Pandora’s Box of issues involving freedom of speech, equal access to information, privacy and consumer’s rights. In addition, it will act as a disincentive for investment in improved infrastructure because the network owners can simply channel their “preferred” customers through the available bandwidth and create scarcity for everyone else. This would drive up the cost for the consumer and for the non-affiliated content provider. This is a very important issue for non-profit users of the Internet such as education, healthcare and government services. The Internet has become essential to our way of life and is too important to have its fate dictated by the latest “business model” brainstormed by the telephone and cable giants. There are no legal protections in place that can guarantee the good behavior of the operators of this public good. In contrast, regulations and strong national policy in other nations have spurred tremendous growth and investment in improved infrastructure. One has only to look at the cost/speed ratio available in most European and Asian countries, where regulation exists, to know we are going down the wrong path.

A CNET blog listed 10 reasons why net neutrality is a dead topic (see here: http://news.com.com/8301-13578_3-9773538-38.html?part=dht&tag=nl.e433) Does EDUCAUSE agree with this? Is net neutrality a dead topic? If you agree, why do you think that is?

EDUCAUSE does not agree that Net Neutrality is dead. However, after over 50 recent visits with Commerce committee staff in both the Senate and House, we do agree with Mr. McCullagh on several of his points:

We agree that the current administration is opposed to Net Neutrality legislation and that a larger Democratic majority in Congress, and/or a new administration will probably be necessary before Net Neutrality legislation will be passed.
We agree that the Democratic leadership understands their slim voting margin on this issue and have chosen to use their time more productively in other pressing issues such as global warming and the Iraq War. We also believe that this is an important time to educate Congress on the issue of Net Neutrality, so that when it rises on the agenda, there will be a more well informed debate than took place last year.
The AT&T merger did defuse some of the rhetoric as Mr. McCullagh points out… what it also did was deliver a very sound definition of Net Neutrality that most sides can agree to and can serve as a starting point for making it permanent and enforceable law.
Far from fragmenting, most of the companies named in the article are still very committed to the principle of Net Neutrality. When Congress decides the time is right to address this issue again, I suspect that you will see a much larger and formidable coalition develop around this issue.

Net Neutrality is not dead… but we must be patient and use this time wisely to develop sound arguments and gather convincing evidence for the debate that most certainly lies ahead.

Is EDUCAUSE still concerned about net neutrality? If yes, are you promoting this issue in any way?

EDUCAUSE is still very concerned about Net Neutrality. We have created new educational material, we have continued to educate our membership, and since January we have completed over 40 individual meetings to help educate Congressional staff.

Wendy's blog
Login or register to post comments
3625 reads

		Net Neutrality is far from Dead Created by Wendy Wigen (EDUCAUSE) on September 10, 2007 (The following is a response to questions asked by a reporter from ESchoolNews) What are EDUCAUSE's thoughts concerning the Justice Department’s statement on Sept. 6—that Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic? The department said it supports this fee because Net Neutrality could prevent investment and innovation. Do you agree? Disagree? Why or why not? EDUCAUSE disagrees with the DoJ position taken in their Sept. 6 statement regarding Net Neutrality. While realizing that White House Administration has dictated this position and the leadership at both the DoJ and the FTC are simply following their instructions, we were hopeful that the agencies would have considered many of the well thought out, and independent, arguments for Net Neutrality legislation. Allowing network operators to charge fees for “priority” treatment goes against the basic principle of openness that has been a part of the Internet since its conception Our members feel strongly that the low barrier to entry for innovative applications and services, coupled with the ability for users to “go anywhere, anytime” is primarily responsible for the Internet becoming the economic powerhouse it is today. Consumers and content providers should be allowed to buy better service by doing what they already can do (when it is available)… purchase a larger, faster connection. By allowing certain content providers to “purchase” priority service that the network owners will control through deep packet inspection opens up a Pandora’s Box of issues involving freedom of speech, equal access to information, privacy and consumer’s rights. In addition, it will act as a disincentive for investment in improved infrastructure because the network owners can simply channel their “preferred” customers through the available bandwidth and create scarcity for everyone else. This would drive up the cost for the consumer and for the non-affiliated content provider. This is a very important issue for non-profit users of the Internet such as education, healthcare and government services. The Internet has become essential to our way of life and is too important to have its fate dictated by the latest “business model” brainstormed by the telephone and cable giants. There are no legal protections in place that can guarantee the good behavior of the operators of this public good. In contrast, regulations and strong national policy in other nations have spurred tremendous growth and investment in improved infrastructure. One has only to look at the cost/speed ratio available in most European and Asian countries, where regulation exists, to know we are going down the wrong path. A CNET blog listed 10 reasons why net neutrality is a dead topic (see here: http://news.com.com/8301-13578_3-9773538-38.html?part=dht&tag=nl.e433) Does EDUCAUSE agree with this? Is net neutrality a dead topic? If you agree, why do you think that is? EDUCAUSE does not agree that Net Neutrality is dead. However, after over 50 recent visits with Commerce committee staff in both the Senate and House, we do agree with Mr. McCullagh on several of his points: We agree that the current administration is opposed to Net Neutrality legislation and that a larger Democratic majority in Congress, and/or a new administration will probably be necessary before Net Neutrality legislation will be passed. We agree that the Democratic leadership understands their slim voting margin on this issue and have chosen to use their time more productively in other pressing issues such as global warming and the Iraq War. We also believe that this is an important time to educate Congress on the issue of Net Neutrality, so that when it rises on the agenda, there will be a more well informed debate than took place last year. The AT&T merger did defuse some of the rhetoric as Mr. McCullagh points out… what it also did was deliver a very sound definition of Net Neutrality that most sides can agree to and can serve as a starting point for making it permanent and enforceable law. Far from fragmenting, most of the companies named in the article are still very committed to the principle of Net Neutrality. When Congress decides the time is right to address this issue again, I suspect that you will see a much larger and formidable coalition develop around this issue. Net Neutrality is not dead… but we must be patient and use this time wisely to develop sound arguments and gather convincing evidence for the debate that most certainly lies ahead. Is EDUCAUSE still concerned about net neutrality? If yes, are you promoting this issue in any way? EDUCAUSE is still very concerned about Net Neutrality. We have created new educational material, we have continued to educate our membership, and since January we have completed over 40 individual meetings to help educate Congressional staff. Washington Update \| Declan McCullagh \| Department of Justice \| Net Neutrality Wendy's blog Login or register to post comments 3625 reads
		© Copyright 1999-2009 EDUCAUSE Need Help? \| Feedback \| Privacy Policy
	Unless otherwise noted, EDUCAUSE holds the copyright on all materials published by the association, whether in print or electronic form. In certain cases the work remains the intellectual property of the individual author(s) (see Special Circumstances). Content from conference speeches, presentations, blogs, wikis and feeds reflect the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of EDUCAUSE or its members.