< Back to Main Site

EDUCAUSE review onlineEDUCAUSE review online

The End of the Net as We Know It?

0 Comments

© 2006 Mark A. Luker

EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 41, no. 3 (May/June 2006): 88.

Mark A. Luker
Mark A. Luker, Vice President of EDUCAUSE, heads the Policy Office in Washington, D.C. Comments on this article can be sent to the author at mluker@educause.edu.

Recent congressional hearings on the heretofore little-known concept of network neutrality prove once again that the devil is in the details. It is gratifying that the United States, which has long drifted without a policy rudder on broadband networking and has fallen behind numerous countries in broadband uptake, is now grappling with how to convert and augment our legacy communications systems to provide access to high-speed, broadband networking for all. Numerous competing companies are installing wired and wireless Internet services in both new and old venues. Many municipalities are installing their own advanced networks in a bid to support better access to education, health care, government services, commerce, and employment for their citizens and to remain competitive as communities in a flattening world. Telephone and cable TV companies now support a starter level of broadband Internet to the home and are investing heavily in upgrades to support much greater capacities in an all-digital, Internet Protocol format. The U.S. Congress is considering an overhaul of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in an effort to promote and extend the adoption of true broadband networking by addressing thorny issues of competition, regulation, taxation, and subsidy in the light of new technologies. So, what could be wrong with this picture?

What could be wrong is that the major telephone and cable TV companies still have an effective duopoly in last-mile connections to homes and offices in most communities and will try to use this power to dictate the policies and business practices of the new broadband Internet. This could substantially change the nature of the Internet we have come to know and love, to the detriment of both the consumers and the providers of Internet-based content and services. A case in point is the recent claim by providers of telephone-based DSL Internet that they cannot afford the investment required to upgrade their services to carry high-definition TV unless they can wall off part of their capacity to make sure that competing services do not interfere with their own programming. Taking this a step further, they claim the right to charge higher rates to content providers willing to pay for better service, in effect biasing the performance of the Internet to support the business plans of the highest bidder. Very large content providers such as Google, Yahoo!, and ESPN could, in this scenario, pay the Internet service providers (ISPs) to provide faster and better access to their own products and indeed might feel compelled to do so in a competitive market.

Introducing such a performance bias violates time-honored design assumptions of the Internet. It takes away the customers right to choose content and services, on an equal basis, from all that are available at a given time. It inhibits innovation by locking the large providers into positions of strength. What inventor of a new Internet product could afford, in advance of sales, to buy good performance from the ISPs to compete with already established producers? Such performance biases would also balkanize the Internet into zones controlled by different ISPs, which might behave differently with respect to similar or even identical products. This would erect unpredictable and steep barriers to new Internet applications, which must assume a certain uniformity to succeed. The Internet could not have grown as rapidly as it did, or have supported all of its attendant innovations, if such biases had been present at the start.

As it considers the larger issue of telecommunications reform, the U.S. Congress is presently holding hearings on the network neutrality issue. The higher education community has weighed in on the side of neutrality, and against bias, as a means of protecting the free flow of information on the Internet, of defending our access to lesser-used and less-commercial content, and of avoiding the need to outbid entertainment channels to offer quality access to distance learning. In a recent hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Gary Bachula of Internet2 explained how colleges and universities have successfully deployed high-capacity broadband (100 megabits/second or more) to each student and faculty member, effectively sidestepping the scarcity claims that underpin most calls for bias. As a result, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has asked the ISPs to explain, in writing, why they cannot support the same capacity being offered by higher education institutions and by other countries. Although the technical path to a solution might seem clear, the result in Congress is far from certain, since powerful profit motives underlie the calls for bias. There is real cause to worry that the end may, indeed, be just around the corner.

For a collection of papers, letters, and testimony on this topic, see http://www.educause.edu/netneutrality.

Mark Luker

Mark Luker is a Telecommunications Policy Specialist at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and a member of the BTOP Team. Until recently he was Vice President of EDUCAUSE, an association of over 2,000 universities and colleges that promotes the transformation of higher education through innovative applications of information technology. He led the Washington DC-based EDUCAUSE policy program as well as Net@EDU, a "thought-leadership" coalition of university CIOs and state network directors who work to advance national networking for both research and education.

Luker also has served as the Program Director for advanced networking at the National Science Foundation and the federal Next Generation Internet project. Before that he worked on organizational issues for information technology services as CIO at the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. In this role he was very active in several national projects including the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative and the Coalition for Networked Information.

Luker received his doctorate from the University of California, Berkeley, and served as a faculty member and acting dean at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, before moving into information technology management.

 

Tags from the EDUCAUSE Library

Tags from the Community

Most Popular

Stay Up-to-Date

RSS Email Twitter

Share Your Work and Ideas

Issues coming up will focus on designing the future of higher ed, digital engagement, and new business models. Share your work and ideas with EDUCAUSE Review Online.

E-mail us >
Close
Close


Annual Conference
September 29–October 2
View Proceedings

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

Digital Badges
Member recognition effort
Earn yours >

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.