Despite Cisco's position, there is fractious division among network engineers on whether prioritizing certain time-sensitive traffic would actually improve network performance. Introducing intelligence into the Internet also introduces complexity, and that can reduce how well the network works. Indeed, one of the main reasons scientists first espoused the end-to-end principle is to make networks efficient; it seemed obvious that analyzing each packet that passes over the Internet would add some computational demands to the system.
Gary Bachula, vice president for external affairs of Internet2, a nonprofit project by universities and corporations to build an extremely fast and large network, argues that managing online traffic just doesn't work very well. At the February Senate hearing, he testified that when Internet2 began setting up its large network, called Abilene, "our engineers started with the assumption that we should find technical ways of prioritizing certain kinds of bits, such as streaming video, or video conferencing, in order to assure that they arrive without delay. As it developed, though, all of our research and practical experience supported the conclusion that it was far more cost effective to simply provide more bandwidth. With enough bandwidth in the network, there is no congestion and video bits do not need preferential treatment."
Today, Bachula continued, "our Abilene network does not give preferential treatment to anyone's bits, but our users routinely experiment with streaming HDTV, hold thousands of high-quality two-way videoconferences simultaneously, and transfer huge files of scientific data around the globe without loss of packets."
Not only is adding intelligence to a network not very useful, Bachula pointed out, it's not very cheap. A system that splits data into various lanes of traffic requires expensive equipment, both within the network and at people's homes. Right now, broadband companies are spending a great deal on things like set-top boxes, phone routers and other equipment for their advanced services. "Simple is cheaper," Bachula said. "Complex is costly" -- a cost that may well be passed on to customers.
Expensive as they may be, the new network schemes will allow for myriad moneymaking opportunities. The new technology will allow AT&T and company to reserve the fast lane for the highest bidders. And AT&T says such a plan is perfectly fair. "It costs a lot to maintain and operate a network," says Ciccone of AT&T. "You don't pay for that by offering a raw pipe. We didn't build a copper line network a hundred years ago so people could do whatever they want on it. We offered a phone service. And you don't build networks so that somebody else can necessarily use them for free. We have the capability through dedicated lines of service for offering a high-quality product. There's a service there. We should be able to offer that in the market."
Ciccone is particularly galled by the fact that those who are the most opposed to AT&T's plans are enormous firms -- such as Google -- that want to make money by offering video services online. "This really is just coming from a couple companies who have plans to stream movies," he says. "They hide behind the guise of the innovator in the garage who's building the next big Google. That's a lot of hooey because the little guy is not streaming movies. This is about the companies that want to stream movies, and they want to not just compete with us but with cable companies in doing so. What disturbs them is that we're building network capacity to be able to accommodate ourselves with a very high-quality product, and the Googles won't be able to deliver the same quality."
Technology companies do say they fear AT&T's network won't provide a level playing field, and that AT&T's competitors won't be able to deliver videos that work as well as AT&T's content. Networks have finite space, and it is a fact of network engineering that when some data is given a priority on the network, other data will be pushed aside. At the Senate hearing, Stanford Law professor and Internet policy expert Lawrence Lessig argued that this will put companies or individuals that can't pay for high-quality service at an enormous disadvantage, "reducing application or content competition on the Internet." In the past year, streaming-video Web sites have proliferated on the Internet, and some of the most popular services have come from start-ups like YouTube. Under AT&T's plan, flush firms like Google would be able to pay for all the space on the line, leaving the smaller guys out of luck. The Internet has long been a meritocracy, where smart and creative companies can act quickly and beat out established players. That wouldn't be so on AT&T's Internet.
Broadband operators respond by declaring they will offer high-speed services to all companies, big or small, and anybody will be able to pay for a spot in the fast lane. "Generally companies shy away from doing exclusive deals," says AT&T's Ciccone. "You don't say I'm only going to provide telephone service to only one bank." But as Amazon's Misener points out, "This is a zero-sum game. If you prioritize anyone's content you necessarily degrade someone else's. That's how it works." When you convert one lane on a freeway into a toll lane, it's true that you make traffic better for cars that can pay. But you also make traffic worse for cars that cannot.
Indeed, that's what makes AT&T's plan so lucrative. The company can't offer fast service to everyone. If it did offer all companies access to the fast lane for a low fee, the lane would soon become congested and nobody would have an incentive to pay. To make the most money, the network operators may charge just a few firms huge sums to ride on the pipe. This means that one or two companies could lock in a preferred position on the network.
And AT&T's own services could benefit greatly from the new plan. For instance, AT&T offers a voice-over-the-Internet phone plan called CallVantage that competes with Skype, a free service owned by eBay. "Let's say there's a certain amount of revenue in voice services, maybe $125 billion in voice," explains Wu. If AT&T determines that letting Skype onto the fast lane will cause it to lose customers and, thus, revenue, it could decide to only let Skype ride the slow lanes. "If you're going to lose $10 billion to Skype by letting them on, why give them that money?" Wu says that under current regulations, this practice would be perfectly legal.
While such deals may be legal, AT&T says, they would be bad for business. If a broadband company didn't allow a popular service like Skype a spot in the fast lane, consumers would choose a different provider. "If you do make dumb decisions, your customers go somewhere else," Ciccone says. "Nobody wants to offer half a service with only special deals or arrangements for something of that nature. You're competing against other companies that may do it differently."
But if you don't like your Internet provider, would you really be able to go elsewhere? Cerf, who is now Google's chief Internet "evangelist," pointed out in the Senate hearing that only 53 percent of Americans now have a choice between cable modem and DSL high-speed Internet service at home. According to the FCC, 28 percent of Americans have only one of these options for broadband Internet access, and 19 percent have no option at all.
Moreover, phone and cable companies have been trying to reduce competition in the broadband business even further. They convinced the FCC to allow them to prohibit rival Internet service providers -- such as Earthlink -- from offering high-speed net access on phone- and cable-company-owned lines. (Phone and cable companies do lease their lines to independent ISPs like Earthlink, but under current rules they can decline to do so at any time.) AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have also pushed hard to stop cities across the country from launching free or low-cost municipal wireless Internet systems.
In this marketplace, if your DSL or cable modem provider begins to favor some content over others, you will have very little recourse. Even if you could choose another provider, doing so isn't easy. "It's not like there are two supermarkets in town and if you don't like one you can go to the other," Amazon's Misener says. He adds that "every economic theory we know suggests that when there's a duopoly" -- in this case between cable broadband and phone broadband -- "there will be tacit collusion in the market." So even if you could choose between broadband or cable service, eventually, like radio stations in any metro area, you will find they all sound the same. Or think about your cable lineup. When your provider doesn't carry the TV network you like, what choice do you have? Almost none.
At the moment, there are very few regulations that outline what broadband companies can and cannot do with content on their lines. So far, the FCC has only been willing to outline some principles to which firms should adhere. In a speech in Boulder, Colo., in February 2004, Michael Powell, the former FCC head, said that he didn't see the need for regulation. Instead, he set out a list of "Internet freedoms" that he "challenged the broadband network industry to preserve." Specifically, Powell called on high-speed network providers to allow their customers to access any legal content on the Internet, use any legal applications, and plug in any devices to their networks. The FCC later outlined these principles in a "policy statement," and imposed these conditions on Verizon and AT&T as temporary conditions of the mergers the companies underwent last year.
But while these "freedoms" allow customers access to any services, they don't outline whether AT&T can give some content priority on the network. In addition, there is a debate about whether Powell's "challenge" is enforceable at all. Last year, when one small North Carolina ISP began blocking Internet voice calls on its network, the FCC quickly stepped in and fined the firm. Telecom firms say the incident proves that the FCC has enough authority to block egregious behavior. But AT&T's Ciccone also acknowledges that adhering to the FCC's vision is a "voluntary commitment. It's not a rule or a regulation of the FCC. They laid out the broadband principles and our compliance is purely a voluntary act on our part."
Wu explains the issue this way: "Right now it's like the ghost of Michael Powell has his finger in the dike" protecting us against the worst behavior of big companies. But if you were starting a new service on the Internet, "do you want to bet your business on the ghost of Michael Powell?"
Today, as numerous proposals for reforming telecom law float around Congress, broadband firms are fighting hard against a neutral network, and apparently winning. (AT&T may certainly be on the government's good side, as it has been secretly allowing the National Security Agency to monitor its phone and Internet lines, according to a retired AT&T technician, as reported by Wired News.) In a party-line vote last week, Republicans on a House subcommittee defeated one neutrality proposal. According to many observers, another bill in the Senate, offered by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, faces similar dim prospects. In addition to lobbying, broadband firms have launched a campaign aimed at urging Americans to join their fight. Large telecom firms back a "coalition" called Hands Off the Internet, which argues that instituting network neutrality amounts to government "regulation" of the Internet. On its Web site, the group -- which is funded by, among other companies, AT&T, and is headed by former Bill Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry -- beseeches, "Join us and say NO to government regulation of the Internet!"
Opponents say that regulation is the only way to save the Internet from the likes of AT&T. "They would have the pipe split between the public Internet -- which might get 1 Mbps speeds -- and a toll lane on the rest of the 100 Mbps pipe they're laying," Tod Cohen, the director of government affairs at eBay, says of the AT&T's plans. By "public Internet," Cohen is referring to today's Internet, the Internet of Google, Blogger, Skype, YouTube and Flickr, services that came out of nowhere and are now indispensable. "They're saying, 'We'll leave the public Internet to be like the public-access station. But if you want to be on one of the fast channels, you have to pay.'"
Consumer advocate Chester sees a dark future for the Internet if big companies like AT&T gain unregulated control. "I think the public requires a serious national debate about what this means and what it's going to look like," he says. "There's a basic assumption that the Internet is going to remain forever open and diverse and affordable. I'm saying we should be cautious. We should really understand what these proposals mean for the kind of diverse voices we would want to see online."
About the writer
Farhad Manjoo is a Salon staff writer.
Related Stories
Free American broadband!
In France, you can get super-fast DSL, unlimited phone service and 100 TV channels for a mere $38 a month. Why does the same thing cost so much more in the U.S.?
10/18/05
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)