Tolls may slow Web traffic

The same issues arise with independent phone services that use Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP), such as Vonage and Skype. "Because Vonage competes directly with the telephone service of the network operators that also provide high-speed Internet access, the incentives to discriminate against us are clear," said Vonage chief Jeffrey Citron at the Senate hearing. "Vonage has already seen several smaller network operators block our service. Most recently, major phone company executives seem to suggest that our service isn't going to work as well if we don't pay them additional fees."

In one online forum, Vonage customers shared suspicions that cable company Comcast is degrading the quality of their Vonage phone calls. (Comcast is rolling out a digital phone service.) Comcast and Vonage Holding Corp. have denied that any such problem exists.

"You can imagine all kinds of scenarios," says David Isenberg, an independent telecommunications analyst (www.isen.com/blog) and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. "Once you establish the principle, you can see where it leads.... Maybe they'll charge a lower price for publications the carrier deems politically acceptable and a higher price - maybe a prohibitively high price - for publications the carrier considers unacceptable. Or maybe you won't be able to get them at all." Mr. Isenberg is helping to sponsor the Freedom to Connect conference April 3-4 in Washington, D.C. He hopes to spur "an in-depth conversation" about what's at stake in the "net neutrality" debate.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon has introduced a bill to ensure net neutrality by prohibiting network operators from favoring their own content over that of other companies that they carry. The bill would prevent carriers from "interfering with, blocking, degrading, altering, modifying, or changing traffic on the Internet" or from creating "a priority lane where content providers can buy quicker access to customers, while those who do not pay the fee are left in the slow lane," the senator said in a statement.

AT&T's Ms. Jones argues that such legislation is unnecessary. "They're dealing in a lot of 'what could happen' [scenarios]" she says. "But there's nothing that has happened." Nor will AT&T ever degrade its customers' service, she says.

All sides say that vigorous competition among Internet providers is a check against abusing customers and eliminates the need for legislation. Cable and phone companies say such competition already exists, and that they're not only battling each other but also several "flavors" of wireless Internet (including wi-fi and Wi-MAX) and perhaps, in the near future, Broadband over Power Lines (BPL). But advocates of legislation say those alternatives aren't truly viable. Cable and phone companies essentially constitute a duopoly, a two-headed monopoly, and hence need to be regulated.

AT&T's recent announcement that it will absorb BellSouth has only added to the talk of duopoly. Of the seven Baby Bells created in 1984 to stimulate competition, only three - AT&T, Verizon, and Quest - would be left.

"You're not looking at a free marketplace of competitors," says Wendy Seltzer, a former staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a consumer rights group, who now teaches Internet law at Brooklyn Law School.

Without forcing some commitment to net neutrality from Internet providers, small startups may never get a chance to see where their ideas could lead, advocates say. The very vitality of the Internet will be threatened.

"That's certainly something that the net neutrality forces will be trying to argue," says Ms. Seltzer. "Network neutrality might be a little bit of regulation, but it's regulation that's good for [promoting] a lot more free market."

Page: 1 | 2