Carriers should be dumb pipes. They should transport content as requested by their customers--no need to "add value" and interpret it.
ALSO:
Finneran on Net Neutrality: A sellout, or making the best deal they could?

It's time to take a position on net neutrality, an issue that isn't new--in fact, it's as old as the telephone network itself. The FCC was actually created based on lessons learned from the railroad industry. Common carriers are not the best at watching the henhouse.

The subject is taking shape as one of the most important issues of the Internet and communications. Google and Verizon proposed legislation on neutrality, and while their vision is offensive to many--at least it is a vision. The FCC and even the White House continue to only talk about it.

Telecom historically has always taken a strong stance on net neutrality. It was part of Theo Vail's vision (early CEO of AT&T), and why telephony is regulated. Carriers should have no ability to discriminate regarding traffic. Carriers are prohibited by law from censoring call routes--customers can call gay sex lines, political parties, abortion clinics, and even other carriers regardless if the carrier likes it or not.

Discrimination is a tricky subject. Discrimination can be a social good and we allow it in many forms; kids and seniors pay less at movies and businesses pay more for basic phone service. But discrimination can be very bad too--we are sensitized to religious, race, and gender issues - but network discrimination wasn’t covered in Civics.

The issue relates to Internet traffic which is transitioning from entertainment to a critical component of our individual and corporate communications. The Internet is rapidly replacing the PSTN as well as many other forms of communication networks (broadcast, movies, pictures, newspapers, education, etc.). It's replacing networks that were protected and regulated (and neutral) with one that is not.

The Internet really became unregulated in a number of steps, but primarily in 2005. Copper-based DSL providers were heavily regulated as telcos and cable companies weren't. The FCC solved the disparity by considering Internet a Title I ancillary jurisdiction (as opposed to Title II; common carrier jurisdiction). Providers of high-speed Internet access were now free to discriminate, which is what Comcast did by throttling BitTorrent users in 2007. The FCC told them to stop, which Comcast did, then subsequently challenged the FCC’s right to interfere. The Federal court agreed with Comcast.

So, as it stands, net neutrality is not a legal requirement. The White House and the FCC want this changed. But as with all things political, it is falling upon party lines. Obama said earlier this year "I'm a big believer in Net Neutrality. I campaigned on this. I continue to be a strong supporter of it." Meanwhile, Senator McCain proposes legislation called the Internet Freedom Act. The legislation says the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." Here Freedom means free from neutrality requirements.

So what's the big deal? Why shouldn't carriers be able to control traffic and uses of their networks?

The answer is that carriers should be dumb pipes. They should transport content as requested by their customers--no need to "add value" and interpret it. This is not a wired or wireless issue, this is fundamental right and expectation of how networks should work. Stacy Higginbotham writes:

Another possibility is that operators could seek deals with certain service or app providers to get paid for delivering certain traffic on their handsets, but not others. If you're Pandora and AT&T has a deal with Slacker, you may see your stunning growth slow. Consumers may or may not realize what's going on depending on how many layers of legalese is wrapped around the transparency this framework requires.

Google and Verizon are trying to do something about the current situation and came up with a "framework" for legislators to consider. It’s a start, but clearly hit a few nerves. Three nerves and a bit of disappointment as Google has been one of the largest Internet savvy organizations championing net neutrality. The meat of the proposal was consistent with most net neutrality motions, to insist that the Internet remain open and freely available, with enforcement teeth to ensure carriers can't discriminate against one content provider in favor of another.

Here's the concerns. First the proposed framework allows carriers to develop new enhanced services that are not subject to net neutrality. Using the PSTN as a frame of reference, that would suggest that an innovation such as touch-tone dialing would not have needed to adhere to the dialing rules established for rotary phones. In other words, new technologies, new networks, and new services default to non neutral.