WASHINGTON-As the battle for network neutrality heats up on Capitol Hill, wireless largely has been ignored, even though the nation’s two largest carriers prohibit customers from using bandwidth-hogging services and the fourth-largest carrier can only provide a confusing explanation as to where it stands on the issue.
Network neutrality generally refers to the ability to run any application or connect any device to the communications network. For content providers, it means not being required to pay pipe owners to have their content carried or given priority. Some pipe owners (cable, telecom and wireless carriers) have said they would like to prioritize packets so they can manage their networks effectively. Network-neutrality proponents warn that this is code for creating two Internets; one with premium content paid for by both the consumers and content providers, and the one that exists today. Left out of this debate is the recognition that wireless already prioritizes and restricts.
“Verizon Wireless is all about network reliability and quality of service-for all of the voice and data services we office, including BroadbandAccess. Quality of service is what is behind the terms and conditions,” said Debra Lewis, Verizon Wireless spokeswoman. Verizon Wireless’ terms of service specifically precludes usage of Voice over Internet Protocol and other high-bandwidth applications.
These terms and conditions appear to conflict with statements made last week by Tom Tauke, executive vice president of public affairs, policy & communications for Verizon Communications Inc.-one of Verizon Wireless’ corporate parents. Tauke told the Pike & Fischer’s Broadband Policy Summit that blocking access would be “akin to Starbucks hatching a plan to secretly serve customers Folgers crystals-on paper it makes them more money; in reality it puts them out of business.”
Lewis did not comment on the apparent conflict, but said Verizon Wireless’ terms and conditions had nothing “to do with net neutrality.”
Cingular Wireless L.L.C. has similar language prohibiting VoIP usage in its service terms.
Sprint Nextel Corp.’s “business and consumer contracts include general provisions on fraud and abuse of service but do not speak directly to VoIP services on wireless devices. However, we are constantly reviewing and updating the language in our customer contracts to reflect technological changes in the marketplace,” said Tim O’Regan, Sprint Nextel spokesman.
T-Mobile USA’s story is a bit more complicated. “At this time, T-Mobile USA does not have a policy restricting VoIP,” said a spokesman for T-Mobile USA. But “in Europe, you are not supposed to use VoIP or instant messaging with flat-rate pricing plans,” Klaus Czerwinski, spokesman for T-Mobile International, told RCR Wireless News.
If that is not confusing enough, T-Mobile USA’s name appears on a letter sent to Capitol Hill in March favoring network neutrality. But a T-Mobile USA spokesman said the letter was “signed erroneously. T-Mobile USA was not a signatory to the letter. T-Mobile did not sanction signing that letter.”
T-Mobile USA has not joined a coalition, netcompetition.org, to fight against network neutrality. Cingular, Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel, as well as industry trade association CTIA, are part of the group.
“Network neutrality is most threatening to wireless carriers who are spectrum crunched or who have a lot of customers using the spectrum they have,” said Scott Cleland, executive director of netcompetition.org. “Net neutrality is at the heart of whether a carrier can offer quality of service. If they can’t manage their networks, it will knee-cap their business plans.”
Cleland believes any mandate for network neutrality would be impossible to enforce. “How can the government enforce network neutrality without mass monitoring of the average American’s Internet traffic?” he asked, linking the network-neutrality issue to the politically volatile issue of surveillance programs by the National Security Agency.
Telecom reform bills in the House and Senate differ on how to treat network neutrality, but both are largely favorable to network owners. In the House, the Federal Communications Commission is given authority to enforce its broadband policy on a case-by-case basis, but cannot issue a general rule. In the Senate, the FCC is to spend five years studying whether network neutrality becomes a problem and then seek whatever authority it believes it needs. The House Commerce Committee has passed its bill. The Senate Commerce Committee hopes to complete action by early next month.
