NETWORK NUETRALITY – ISP’s PUSH FOR CABLE SHARING RULES
It has been in debate for quite some time now. The issue being whether cable companies providing cable infrastructure for broadband connectivity to residential and commercial users can be categorized under “Telecommunication services” or “Information services”. The issue is of debate because of the ambiguity in the classification. According to the FCC any type of service that simply transmits information without any additional processing involved is a telecommunication service. While any service that processes, stores and transfers information, in other words depends on a specific protocol is called “Information or Enhanced “services. (545, Supreme Court of United State, 2005)
The point of discussion is actually the impact a service has because of this categorization. The companies classified as “Telecommunication Service “providers have to confirm to the FCC’s common carrier Title II of The Communications Act of 1996. This means that the Telecos would have to share their networks with competitors for whole sale prices. (The reason behind regional Bells acquiring large parts of their network after the AT&T breakup) .And on the other hand the “Information Service” providers are not subject to the mandatory common carrier act.
The real problem however lies for Internet Service Providers (ISP) like Brand X Internets and EarthLink Inc., which do not own cables for providing broadband connectivity. They have to depend on network providers to reach out to their customers. Their argument is that the FCC has misclassified data service as information service and has exempted them from allowing external companies to access their networks. This rule has proved advantageous for companies like AT&T, Verizon and SBC which have laid out their own fiber and are now looking forward to offer enhanced services like VoIP and IPTV. (Noguchi, 2005)
A group of ISP’s (headed by Brand X Internet) has appealed to the Supreme Court pushing for neutrality of networks. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the FCC. The case has opened up a Pandora’s Box, throwing up critical issues before the FCC and Congress. The issue can be viewed from two standpoints. From the commerce aspect, the ruling will not give any choice to the consumer to choose between service providers. The scope for reduced price and improved speed will decrease drastically. On another front, is the issue of net neutrality and nondiscrimination. The cable company bestowed with complete control over its cables is capable of blocking, monitoring, censoring or manipulating online activity retarding its users of freedom of free speech and expression (Gross ,2005).