Are broadband providers cooking their own goose?

Manage your image. Lobby Congress. And for Christ’s sake, keep your infractions out of the news!

Most corporations understand this intuitively and are extremely savvy when it comes to pursuing the bottom line. With government regulations an ever-present potential, it’s a good idea to keep a low profile when it comes to those practices that may prompt discussion of rulemaking.

Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and others are usually quite adroit at duping the public and staying out of the regulatory limelight.

However, earlier today Senators Byron Dorgan and Olympia Snowe called for a congressional hearing in order to investigate practices by phone and cable companies that are constricting communications over the Internet and on cell phones (AP, 10/26/07). This comes after a series of discriminatory practices by cable and phone companies that made headlines recently.

Comcast demonstrated last week that it has the capability to slow down and otherwise affect website applications and services (AP, 10/23/07). Moreover, Comcast actively utilized this capability after consistent denials of blocking peer-to-peer file sharing programs and of employing traffic shaping tactics. In addition to blocking BitTorrent traffic, Wired Magazine blogger, Scott Gilbertson notes that there have been reports that Comcast employs similar methods limiting both Gnutella traffic and Lotus Notes.

Four weeks ago Verizon blocked messages from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, citing their right to stifle “controversial or unsavory” text (NYT, 09/27/07). After the discriminatory action led to an explosion of controversy in the press, Verizon backed down and allowed the messages, but they continue to reserve the right to deny other text messaging programs in the future (Business Week, 10/25/2007).

Similarly, in August AT&T censored a few lyrics made about President Bush by Pearl Jam lead singer Eddie Vedder during a webcast. Namely, “George Bush leave this world alone” and “George Bush find yourself another home.” Although AT&T claims that the censorship was unintentional and caused by a third-party webcast vendor, the event, like those cited above, sparked a discussion of net neutrality in the media. Unintentional or not, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps expressed concerns about broadband companies having the power to control content along with business incentives to do so.

What does this mean for net neutrality?

People are starting to change their minds. Stephen H. Wildstom, writer of a technology column for Buisness Week, and previous supporter of a deregulatory approach to the Internet recently wrote that, the “hands-off approach hasn't served consumers well. And the Web is far too important to entrust the free flow of information to the shifting whims of a few big companies. Government must step in and tell them to leave our content alone.”

Presently, net neutrality principles exist only as policy recommendations by the FCC. The extent to which these principles will be considered by Congress and the FCC for rulemaking will depend on a number of factors including media visibility of discriminatory practices by broadband providers.

So, will Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and others cook their own goose by continuing to misbehave? Well, if they don’t shape up, they’ll likely be regulated. For everyone’s sake, let’s hope they don’t. Although it’s painful to see them continue to violate net neutrality policy recommendations, things may have to get worse before they can get any better.