Internet access providers, like Verizon, AT&T, Qwest, Sprint Nextel, etc. will not block, degrade, alter, modify, or change the data consumers send or receive over the Internet.
If the above statement were true, then we would have net neutrality and it would be a non-issue. I think that, historically, the monopolistic communication companies have a tradition of violating this premise, and now it is time for a new generation to learn a lesson.
The internet backbone is a shared public utility. It may be owned and managed by corporate giants, but it only functions as an internet if it is shared and public.
The Carriers are complaining that if they are faced with the shackles of government restriction then all innovation and growth will die. They believe consumers, not the government, should determine how content and services are delivered, and that as long as consumers are free to take or reject any option, internet access providers should be free to offer new service and pricing options. Hogwash. It isn’t the consumers that determine how content and services are delivered, it is the carriers, the internet access providers. And they should be able to offer new services and pricing options on the internet, as long as it is backwards compatible with existing services.
I would love to see some more innovation on the internet. I think moving to IPv6 and enabling multicast on the internet will be fantastic. And not all backbone service providers need to upgrade to these new technologies. The smart ones can upgrade and collect a bunch of customers that want to use these technologies. They can hope to keep these customers once other backbones upgrade to these new technologies.
And what’s in it for the carrier? New services will require new pricing options. IPv6 and multicast don’t come cheap. They will need to upgrade the infrastructure hardware and software to support these new capabilities. It is only fair that they can ask more for their services. They can even try different pricing options, like for multicast; the receiving party pays a premium to receive the channel and the sender gets paid a percentage of the gross. This motivates the sender to advertise more to get more channel subscribers who in turn pay more to the carrier.
Carriers may also renegotiate their interconnects with other carriers. What if the other carrier has lesser capabilities than the home carrier? rather than a blanket exchange, the carriers may negotiate a price for accepting IPv4 traffic on their IPv6 network. And if the other network is multicast enabled and a subscriber is requesting to join the channel from the other network, how will the subscriber fees be shared? I don’t know how accounting between carriers can be accomplished in a trusted manner. What if a multicast channel actually passes through multiple internet backbones? there’s an accounting nightmare. Or will the home carrier restrict multicast traffic to its own network and not let it out to the internet? That’s a point where ‘network neutrality’ becomes an issue.
It will be interesting to see what happens with HR 5252.