Letters from Kay Kohl

Internet Deregulation Could Hurt Higher Education Providers

(UCEA InFocus, May 2006)
Kay Kohl, UCEA Executive Director and CEO

The House of Representatives is expected to consider telecommunications legislation before recessing for Memorial Day. These hearings are of more than passing interest to continuing higher education. For if Congress were to accede to the wishes of the telephone and cable TV companies, it could effectively spell the end of the Internet as we know it.

The central issue being debated is called "network neutrality" which means that all Web sites get equal treatment. Up until now, companies providing Internet access have followed the "common-carriage" rule. This principle was fundamental to the development of a national telephone network in the last century and basically assured that the same quality service would be provided to all customers.

Now Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are urging Congress to "deregulate." These service providers claim that they cannot afford to upgrade their services unless they are permitted to charge higher rates to content providers who are willing to pay for better service. Adoption of this policy -known as "tiered access"-assumes that large content providers such as Google, Yahoo or ESPN could afford to pay Internet service providers to provide better, faster access to their products, and might feel they had no other choice in a competitive market. The net effect of deregulation would be to discriminate against content and service providers who could not afford to pay the premium rate. In the specific case of higher education, the fear is that deregulation would mean the loss of open, affordable broadband communication enjoyed by many campus users, such as distance education providers, multimedia instruction centers, and Internet research labs.

At Senate hearings in mid-May, Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, said, "This (net neutrality) is now the number one issue." McSlarrow argued: "With bandwidth usage growing at a rapid pace, continued investment will be needed to keep broadband services robust ... and broadband providers need to have continuing flexibility to develop new business models and pricing plans. Network neutrality rules will stifle that flexibility."

Meanwhile in the House, Representative James Sensenbrenner (R- WI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has introduced a bill that would make it illegal for broadband providers to fail to provide its broadband network services "on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis." Sensenbrenneer terms his bill an effort to "preserve Internet freedom and competition." The Wisconsin Congressman does not oppose broadband providers offering increased bandwidth to consumers who are willing to pay for it, but he is against "providers giving faster, more efficient access to certain providers at the expense of others."

Reaching a national consensus on net neutrality soon may prove elusive. The two sides perceive the future so very differently. Still the issue is one that merits higher education's close attention. Over 90 percent of Americans obtain their Internet service either from the local phone or cable company. One reason why the Internet took off so rapidly is that it provides a level playing field to content providers-be it Google or a small college or an individual. No regulation of the Internet could change that situation dramatically. As Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) observed: "If we don't get this right, we're going to have a lot of people in the slow lane."