Net neutrality hearing merely a ‘show trial’

Net neutrality hearing merely a ‘show trial'

by: Derek Hunter

On Feb. 25, the Federal Communications Commission went to Harvard Law School to hold a hearing on the Internet management practices of Comcast, the largest provider of broadband Internet access in the country. Why Harvard, when the FCC is located in Washington? Because Harvard is near the district represented by Rep. Ed Markey, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, who has been a longtime advocate for regulation of the Internet.

The hearing was a typical show trial: two panels weighted heavily with experts opposing Comcast, Verizon (the only other company to participate) and all other Internet service providers on the grounds that they can’t be trusted to do what they have done since the inception of the Internet: keep it open and available for all legal traffic. The heart of the matter was whether Comcast’s rerouting of traffic using the file-sharing software BitTorrent to less crowded areas of the Internet at peak hours constituted “blocking” traffic or was simply a reasonable Internet management technique that harmed no one while ensuring improved browsing experiences for the majority of its customers.

Without managing traffic (think timed traffic lights), ISPs say there are certain times of day when Web traffic is so high (think rush hour) that there’s a risk of not having enough bandwidth to accommodate it. Abandoning network management could end up slowing the Internet for everyone. Since bandwidth is limited (as are lanes on the freeway) and BitTorrent is designed to consume as much bandwidth as possible (think a double-wide semi), Comcast has a program that bounces a tiny minority of heavy BitTorrent users to less crowded areas of the Internet during these peak times to ensure the vast majority of users simply reading e-mails, checking news or blogging don’t have their speeds slowed to a crawl. Seems like common sense — but it’s actually not common, because it rarely happens.

At the hearing, Timothy Wu, a professor of law at Columbia University who is considered by many to be the father of the so-called Net Neutrality movement, testified that what Comcast was doing was unacceptable, a clear demonstration of the need for government to seize control of the Internet through regulation. But his testimony was scatterbrained, at best, calling for regulation over what could be rather than what is.

While witness after witness decried Comcast’s network management as essentially censorship, not one offered an alternative to ensure the Internet works for all users at the same time. Instead, the critics advocated legislation that relegates the Internet according to the old utility model, creating what is commonly referred to as “big dumb pipes” (just imagine a freeway with no lanes, merge areas, shoulders or road signs).

In a perfect world, there would be more than enough bandwidth to go around and management practices wouldn’t be needed, but we don’t live in a perfect world. Bandwidth costs money, and like any commodity, its use must be maximized to be efficiently distributed. The economics of this seemed to make sense to everyone except those who believe that access to the Internet is a right.

The actual results of what Comcast does is essentially unnoticeable to BitTorrent customers, since nothing is blocked — it’s simply rerouted. None of the witnesses at the hearing testified to the contrary. But the facts didn’t seem nearly as important as the political theater.

One point made by witnesses is that there isn’t enough competition when it comes to ISPs. Most broadband consumers have a choice between two providers, at most, so switching services if one does something you don’t like is a possibility only for some — and a limited one, at that. There’s truth to this, but increased regulation will hurt, not help, the problem of insufficient competition. What competitor in its right mind would ever enter a heavily regulated market?

The reason many customers have limited choices of ISPs is because the infrastructure behind providing high-speed Internet is very, very expensive. These costs are made even greater by state and local government control of which companies can build the infrastructure that carries services to homes. This control comes in the form of “franchise fees,” which often amount to 5 percent of gross revenues.

Franchise fees are meant to cover the tearing up of roads and property to lay the pipes for ISP wires but are essentially taxes that go into local and state general revenues, or worse.

It’s the franchise regulations that have served to stifle competition, along with the large capital outlay, that have served as barriers to new companies entering the ISP business. Adding new regulations would make this problem worse.

At the end of the day, nothing was accomplished, as is often the case with show trials. Comcast will and should continue to engage in common-sense network management practices to ensure top-notch service to all its customers. And the pro-regulation crowd will continue to decry broadband providers as censors while offering nothing more than a government takeover.

Network architect Richard Bennett testified, “If we can’t actively manage the network, then we need to shut down the Internet.” It simply won’t work unless the companies that built access to it can make sure it runs smoothly.

Advocates of regulation would like nothing more than to see the government take over the Internet. Advocates of freedom fear nothing more — and rightfully so.

Derek Hunter is executive director of the Media Freedom Project.

View the original at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9082.html