Brandon C.
12-7-09
PAF 591 - ePA

Net Neutrality and Censorship: Will the Telecommunications Industry Become the Nations Censors?

The issue of network (net) neutrality is a confusing and complex topic that involves technology, law, economy, and ideology. While much of the content and use of the Internet has evolved dramatically over the past 40 to 50 years, the fundamental workings of it have not. Based upon the TCP/IP suite of network communications protocols, the architecture of the Internet, while being greatly expanded, has actually changed very little.

The basic philosophy of net neutrality is that the Internet should remain a virtually unregulated space with regard to device, application, and data type that is able to connect to or traverse the network. SaveTheInternet.com, a web site dedicated to ensuring net neutrality, puts it this way, “Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers (telecommunications companies that own the physical wires that connect you to the Internet) from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination” (SaveTheInternet.com, 2009, ¶3).

Legal technology scholar Lawrence Lessig (2002) refers to this principle as the “end-to-end” (e2e) design:

The end-to-end argument says that rather than locating intelligence within the network, intelligence should be placed at the ends: computers within the network should perform only very simple functions that are needed by lots of different applications, while functions that are needed by only some applications should be performed at the edge (p. 34).

The Internet was specifically architected with the e2e principle in mind (Reed, Saltzer, & Clark, 1998) and this principle has allowed the Internet to develop into the world changing force it is today.

However, as with any service that is provided by a for-profit entity, cable and telecommunication companies are seeking further ways to monetize their investments in the thousands of miles of cable and fiber that allow all of us to access the Internet. Their central argument is that since they own the cables, they should have at least some control over what traverses them (Farber & Katz, 2007). Many cable operators are interested in what is called “tiered service,” where certain data traffic either receives priority (is speed up) or is limited in accessibility (slowed down or not permitted) (Hart & Goo, 2006). There are also legitimate concerns about “bad” types of data crossing the network; data like worms and viruses. However, what is considered “bad” is largely left to speculation.

While on the surface, net neutrality sounds like an easy win, the reality is much more complicated. There are a number of very good arguments against net neutrality in its strictest form, and this paper will attempt to explore the arguments on both sides. Of primary importance in this regard is the role that a policy against net neutrality will have on censorship of information on the Internet. With greater control of communication networks comes the greater potential for biases with regard to the delivery of information.

Arguments in Favor of Net Neutrality

Most arguments in favor of net neutrality are based on the ideology of e2e and an Internet history of openness and equality. Tim Wu (2005), in his classic paper on net neutrality, argues that because of the e2e principle, innovation on the Internet has blossomed and that without net neutrality legislation, telecommunication companies cannot be trusted to remain neutral with regard to data selectivity.

Wu explains that while according to macroeconomic theory, telecommunication companies would actually benefit from maintaining an open and thus highly competitive and innovative network, he counters with survey results that:

…shows that operators indeed had implemented significant contractual and architectural limits on certain classes of applications…The problem was the use of methods, like bans on certain forms of applications, which are likely to distort the market and the future of application development.  In short, the recent historical record gives good reason to question the efficacy of self-regulation in this area (p. 143).

Perhaps the most apparent result of a non-neutral network is a tiered service system controlled by the telecommunication companies. Unlike an e2e network, in a tiered system, intelligence is built into the network, making decisions (and taking action) regarding the data that traverses the network based on an arbitrary set of rules and procedures. For many systems, tiered service is highly desirable; emergency rooms, for instance, act first on the most critical patients.

Tiered services on the Internet could take a number of forms, not all of which are monetarily driven. There are a large number of different types of data that traverse the Internet. The most common are basic text information requests like news sites, blogs, email, and other Internet maintenance information (DNS, pings, etc.). However, other types of file based data like images, video and audio are obviously very common. On top of that, all this data can come from any number of sources; from large Internet corporations (Google) down to a student’s lowly class blog. A tiered service might function to give priority to those requesting Google’s information (who would have paid a higher fee for the faster access) over the student blog (who of course cannot compete with Google, much less afford to be in the top tier).

Another more involved form of tiered service uses what is called deep packet inspection (DPI) in order to determine the actions to take on the data. DPI consists of analyzing the actual packets of data that traverse the providers network in order to determine what type of data it is. Through this, telecommunication companies can “discriminate” against certain types of data (Mochalski, 2009). For instance, peer-2-peer (P2P) networking traffic, largely consisting of file, music/voice, and video traffic, comprises roughly half of Internet traffic and up to as much as 95% of nighttime traffic (Anderson, 2007).

While this packet discrimination certainly has legitimate purposes (traffic control, banning of illegal materials like child pornography, etc) (Paul, 2006), net neutrality proponents argue that this technology can also be used to discriminate against data that financially harms the telecommunication company or their partners. For instance, many Internet providers also offer traditional telephone service. However, with cheaper P2P applications like Internet telephony through an application like Skype, there exists a conflict of services whereby one of the company’s products cuts into the share of another (Park, 2009).

Net neutrality proponents argue that with telecommunication companies able to implement tiered services, only those who can pay the most will get the best service. Economically speaking, this sounds fine. After all, that is the heart of our Capitalist system. Yet with regard to the Internet, this means that large existing Internet companies like Google and Facebook will have an unfair advantage (read market failure) against smaller businesses and startups. Given that Internet giants like Google, Amazon, Netflix, YouTube (owned by Google) and eBay were able to attain their dominance largely through an open and neutral Internet (vs. closed networks like AOL or Prodigy), it’s no wonder that they currently support net neutrality legislation (OIC, 2009).

Arguments Against Net Neutrality

Perhaps the most important argument against net neutrality is that of traffic management. Everyday, thousands of terabytes of information travel the Internet and it is the responsibility of network owners to ensure that the traffic is well managed and routed quickly to the intended destination. However, some applications (and hence data types) require a more consistent and reliable connection. For instance, a delay in generating a web page is much less noticeable than delays in streaming video; video is simply more sensitive to transmission delays. Giving priority to certain applications and data is known as quality of service (QoS) and is a type of tiered service. In essence, the network provider is trying to ensure that certain information is transferred more quickly than others (Wang & Crowcroft, 1996).

We can see similar examples to this by looking at current neutral networks like the highway or road systems. While we can think of these systems as neutral, (there are no real controls regarding access other than having a vehicle and a license to drive it), there are times when certain traffic should be given a priority; police and ambulance for instance. This same analogy can be taken to the Internet given the wide variety of applications and devices that can connect to it. For instance, should a patient’s heart monitor data take priority over a music download (Lessig, 2002; Farber & Katz, 2007)?

As we saw earlier, P2P Internet traffic takes up a very large portion of network bandwidth. Telecommunication companies argue that to ensure QoS for latency sensitive data, a form of “minimal discrimination” would need to occur. As network bandwidth shrinks, routers are faced with the challenge of handling more packets of data then they can (exhausting available buffer memory). When this occurs, the router must discard some packets of data. However, in the QoS tiered service model, the choice of which packets to discard or delay would be those that are not as sensitive to latency, or, those of less importance to the network provider (non-minimal discrimination) (Felten, 2006).

The latter non-minimal discrimination is the type of data discrimination that net neutrality proponents are most fearful of since the protocol for determining which data to drop is at the discretion of the telecommunication company. But take this away, the telecommunication companies argue, and overall service will eventually suffer due to congestion and bandwidth issues (Tweney, 2009).
Finally, net neutrality legislation would be another government intrusion into an area where the market has, and arguably should, prevail. As Dylan Tweney (2009) says:

The reason you’re not using AOL to read this right now isn’t because the government mandated AOL’s closed network out of existence: It’s because free and open networks triumphed, and that’s because they were good business (¶12).

The Censorship Threat

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (2006):

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.

With the advent of the Internet, the concept of censorship has shifted greatly in both meaning and importance. Oddly enough, the Internet has served to both reduce censorship through greater access to information (Grossman, 2009) while simultaneously giving those wishing to censor others new tools in their cause (Griffin, 2009).

So how does the issue of net neutrality fit with censorship on the Internet? If no net neutrality legislation is passed and the existing deregulated Internet telecommunications industry decides to offer tiered services and enhanced QoS through non-minimal data discrimination, then Internet censorship becomes a very real issue.

Similar to the tradition forms of censorship like book, film, and speech banning which all protect incumbent ideologies, Internet censorship also presents the issue of censorship by exclusion. Discrimination of data depending on the content or source is very much a censorship threat. Business partnerships between telecommunication companies and third-party entities would increase the incentive to block or reduce the offerings from other sources void of a partnership. For instance, if Cox Communications partnered with Dell to co-brand a new laptop, there would be a great benefit for both companies if Cox either reduced or banned data and access to other laptop manufacturers web sites. By excluding (or reducing access to) other manufacturers, Cox is practicing censorship through exclusion.

Likewise, this could also lead to predatory business practices where companies who do not pay a premium to the telecommunication company for preferred access would simply have their data quality reduced through slower speeds or limited access. This is already happening with certain types of data traffic (primarily P2P and torrent traffic) and there have been numerous cases where Internet service providers (ISP) actively censor “questionable” content, both on their own initiation and by that of the government (Anderson, 2009; McCollum, 2008; Best, 2007).

While the drive to protect ideologies and profits is large, external groups are also pressuring ISP’s and telecommunication companies to limit the types of data that traverse the Internet. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have been pressuring providers to filter copyrighted content on their networks for the sake of their copyright profits (Riley, 2008; Saremi, 2008). This is a rather troubling revelation as it would appear that private external organizations are having as much of an influence as government does on the filtering processes of Internet providers.

Conclusion

As we have seen, net neutrality is a dynamic issue with legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate. While the FCC and Congress have yet to pass final legislation regarding the future of net neutrality, it is important to keep in mind the potential impacts that neutrality legislation can have upon the further evolution of the Internet.

While a free and neutral Internet has allowed the technological advancements and online innovation that we have today, is it still the ideology that should guide us towards the future? A lot has changed since the founding of the Internet and large factors of social, cultural, and economic importance now rest upon a stable online world. Perhaps a compromise with legislatively limited data discrimination that would ensure stability and bandwidth management but without harming innovation or promoting censorship would be ideal. Either way, the decision of net neutrality and its impact on censorship and freedom of information is a critical modern issue that will hopefully be settled in an intelligent and fair manner by our nations leaders.

References
ACLU. (2006). What is Censorship? Retrieved December 10, 2009 from http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/what-censorship
Anderson, N. (2009). The accidental censor: UK ISP blocks Wayback Machine. Retrieved December 10, 2009 from http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/01/the-accidental-censor-uk-isp-restricts-wayback-machine.ars
Anderson, N. (2007). Nocturnal P2P transmissions account for 95 percent of Internet traffic. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/nocturnal-p2p-transmissions-account-for-95-percent-of-internet-bandwidth.ars
Best, J. (2007). Australia pushes further Web censorship. Retrieved December 10, 2009 from http://news.cnet.com/Australia-pushes-further-Web-censorship/2100-1028_3-6209337.html
Farber, D., & Katz, M. (2007). Hold Off on Net Neutrality. Retrieved December 8, 2009 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html
Felten, E. W. (2006). Nuts and Bolts of Network Neutrality. Practising Law Institute, 24th Annual Institute on Telecommunications Policy & Regulation, PLI/PAT, 887, 317-326.
Griffin, P. (2009). China’s internet censorship stranglehold can’t last. Retrieved December 10, 2009 from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10329896&pnum=1
Grossman, L. (2009). Iran Protests: Twitter, the Medium of the Movement. Retrieved December 10, 2009 from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905125,00.html
Hart, K., & Goo, S. K. (2006). Tech Faceoff: Net Neutrality, In the Eye of the Beholder. Retrieved December 8, 2009 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100138.html
Lessig, L. (2002). The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. Vintage.
McCollum, J. (2008). FCC Stepping in on Net Neutrality? Retrieved December 10, 2009 from http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/fcc-stepping-in-on-net-neutrality.html
Mochalski, K., & Schulze, H. (2009). Deep Packet Inspection: Technology, Applications, & Net Neutrality. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from www.ipoque.com/userfiles/file/DPI-Whitepaper.pdf
OIC. (2009). Who We Are. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from http://www.openinternetcoalition.com/index.cfm?objectid=0016502C-F1F6-6035-B1264DD29499E9D0
Park, W. (2009). Skype for iPhone banned by carriers in US, Europe. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from http://www.intomobile.com/2009/04/06/skype-for-iphone-banned-by-carriers-in-us-europe.html
Paul, R. (2006). More Universities Banning Skype. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/09/7814.ars
Reed, D., Saltzer, J., & Clark, D. (1998). Active Networking and End-toEnd Arguments. Retrieved December 8, 2009 from http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/ANe2ecomment.html
Riley, D. (2008). AT&T May Censor Copyrighted Materials At The ISP Level. Retrieved December 10, 2009 from http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/09/att-may-censor-copyrighted-materials-at-the-isp-level/
Saremi, S. (2008). ISP Censoring in America: Coming Soon? Retrieved December 10, 2009 from http://www.searchviews.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/isp-censoring-music-taxes-and-neutrality.php
SaveTheInternet.com. (2009). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved December 7, 2009 from http://www.savetheinternet.com/faq
Tweney, D. (2009). FCC Position May Spell the End of Unlimited Internet. Retrieved December 10, 2009 from http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/fcc-neutrality-mistake/
Wang, Z., & Crowcroft, J. (1996). Quality-of-service routing for supporting multimedia applications. IEEE Journal on Selected areas in communications, 14(7), 1228-1234.
Wu, T. (2003). Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/jtelhtel2&section=9

Tags: censorship, Internet, net neutrality, technology