Wireless (and Wired) Minneapolis

SBC CEO Edward Whitacre announced his intention to start charging companies like Vonage and Google for the Internet traffic they generate. In an interview with Business Week, Whitacre said, “there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?”

By Mr. Whitacre’s logic, the monthly fees you pay for your Internet connection do not entitle you to choose what you do on the Internet.

This violates the principles of “network neutrality.” Network neutrality is the idea that customers should be able to use their broadband connections to access the content of their choosing, run the Internet applications of their choosing, and attach to their connection any devices of their choosing. The opposite of network neutrality is rules that allow the cable or phone company to restrict your ability to download music and videos from the Internet, or use services like Skype, which allows you to talk to other Skype users anywhere in the world for free.

Network neutrality is possible because with Internet Protocol, bits are bits. Whatever you do with your internet connection – listen to radio programs, post your work on a web site, send pictures to family, or talk to friends in Canada – is broken down into little packets of data that move through the network in the same way. The FCC has formally adopted four network neutrality principles as part of their decision-making activities. (For more information, visit Cybertelecom.org’s Net Neutrality page.)

Private companies want to maximize revenue from their networks. They want to do this not by offering faster or more affordable connections, but by charging you for what you do with your connection. For example, they would offer one rate to download video created by their company (or subsidiaries), but a higher rate to download video from an independent filmmaker, and an even higher rate to post your own video for others to download.  Since the cable and phone duopoly provide 98 percent of broadband connections in the U.S., they face no competition from companies that simply want to sell you a fast internet connection to use as you please.

There is an alternative. Publicly owned, open access networks can ensure a competitive market for broadband. Indeed, they may be the only way.

An open access network would allow competing service providers to lease capacity on the network in order to sell services to customers. Customers could then choose Internet service providers based on which speeds and prices fit their needs. Competition would ensure fair rates, and if any service provider restricted what could be done with its connection, customers could choose a different service provider. This model is used in Sweden, and is increasingly being adopted in other places.  The Utopia open access network being built to serve 450,000 homes in western Utah has adopted this model.

A publicly owned broadband network would not be a monopoly. Customers could still choose to use the incumbent phone or cable company’s pipes. Or they could choose to use the publicly owned pipes, which allow them to choose how they use the internet.