ARTS & FARCES internet

Until now all of the talk of a two-tiered internet swirled around voice-over-IP (VOIP) vendors and Google’s ad revenue. It was difficult to wrap a mind around the idea that the internet would ever be anything other than a fulfillment of its original design—an open and neutral network. In a neutral network, carriers treat all data traveling on the network equally. A two-tiered strategy would allow carriers to prioritize their own data traffic—or that of the highest bidder—over that of their competitors. Network neutrality is what has allowed carriers to argue that they are common carriers rather than publishers. Network neutrality allows the best products to bubble to the top; common carrier status allows the telephone companies and internet service providers to disclaim any responsibility for content carried on their networks.

But carriers—mostly the Baby Bell and cable duopolies—are starting to venture into the realm of tiered service, such as offering prioritized VOIP service at a premium. The not-so-clear implication is that other, non-premium, traffic will be relegated to a lower priority of service on the network. Some carriers were starting to block VOIP traffic until the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) forced them to stop. Some providers deny they’re prioritizing certain traffic (or more accurately, assigning what they call parasitic traffic such as VOIP and BitTorrent lower priority on the network). Others admit they’re using “traffic shaping” techniques to prioritize certain data traffic on their networks.

There’s some indication that providers may be gearing up to charge different rates for different types of traffic, including servers. BellSouth’s Chief Technology Officer, William L. Smith, recently broached the topic by speculating that charging premiums to websites for prioritized traffic—Yahoo might pay a premium to have its pages load faster than Google’s, for example—might constitute a viable business model.

Enter Qwest’s recent changes to its subscriber agreement. Here are the juicy changes:

• Business DSL subscribers may not provide wireless access for its customers;
• No public information services may be offered;
• No type of server—personal or commercial—can be run;
• Charges of US$5 for each spam message originating from the account will be levied (there appears to be no exception for virus infestations, zombification, or the like);
• Qwest and its third-party vendors claim the right to monitor all accounts and to “access and adjust your computer settings.”

But wait, there’s more. These restrictions appear to be applicable regardless of whether or not Qwest is the internet service provider. The subscriber agreement specifically disclaims certain services related to third-party internet service providers: email accounts and storage space, roaming, and software upgrades.

Clearly it’s time to interpret these duopoly providers as damage and appropriately route around them. Unless overturned, this will prove to be the single biggest windfall for municipal WiFi and the pre-WiMAX wireless providers possible.

Update: Sunday 15 January 2005 11:15AM: Randall Stross, writing in this morning’s New York Times, has a much better articulated analysis of this problem than mine in his “Hey, Baby Bells: Information Still Wants to be Free.” Stross reports that last November, Amazon, eBay, Microsoft, and Google, along with other big content players filed a petition with a House committee pointing out that a draft version of the bill revising telecommunications law failed to so much as mention network neutrality. Network services like those provided by the petitioners is possible only because of the genius and maximal flexibility of network neutrality; Stross points out that the telephone companies are “genetically incapable of understanding ‘maximally flexible.’”