Is net neutrality important? Ask Web-based companies

Apr 09, 2010 By Chris O'Brien

If you want to understand why consumers need strong rules ensuring all traffic on the Internet is treated equally, look no further than a Silicon Valley telecommunications company called 8x8.

The Sunnyvale, Calif., firm has been around for 23 years, and it's been a public company for 13 years. The company survived the dot-com bust -- but barely -- by reinventing itself as an online , and since then has seen revenues rebound nicely the past five years.

For all of its innovation and survival instincts, though, 8x8 remains at the mercy of every .

"If AT&T or Comcast decided to block us, we would cease to exist," said 8x8 CEO Bryan Martin.

That's not just hyperbole. The threat is serious enough that the company lists it as a risk factor in its securities filings.

Unfortunately, the attempts to put firm rules in place to protect the 8x8's of this world, so-called "" principles, were thrown into chaos Tuesday by a calamitous ruling from a federal appeals court.

The court said the Federal Communications Commission does not have authority to regulate the Internet. The ruling came in a case where Comcast appealed the FCC's decision in 2008 to penalize the company for blocking customers' access to a file-sharing service.

Tuesday's case scuttles the current rule-making process started last fall by the FCC to adopt six principles of "net neutrality." The net neutrality rules would prohibit network operators such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T from blocking users from accessing Internet content that is legal or limiting the kind of devices can attach to the Internet, such as TiVo or a gaming console. They also wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against certain types of Internet (such as video or file-sharing), and their policies for managing their networks would need to be transparent.

Net neutrality is vital to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. And the story of 8x8 explains why.

A few weeks ago, I stopped by 8x8 to meet Martin, a cordial engineer who just celebrated his 20th anniversary at the company. He gradually rose through the ranks to become CEO and chairman in 2002, a moment where it seemed the company was on the verge of collapse.

The company had done well selling telecommunications software to startups, but it saw business evaporate when the stock markets collapsed. The company went from 350 employees to 30 in the blink of an eye.

"The assumption for a while was that the company was going to go under," Martin recalled.

Under Martin's leadership, the company shifted to providing a "hosted" calling service that allows small and medium-size businesses to purchase Internet telephone services over the Web. The shift in business models came just as the notions of "software as a service" and "cloud-based computing" were becoming fashionable.

The company's revenue climbed from $1.3 million in 2004 to $64.6 million in 2009. It has 250 employees. Its stock price is still well off its dot-com high of almost $30 a share.

It's a remarkable tale of reinvention and survival, especially considering it competes against much larger rivals such as AT&T and Vonage. But 8x8 still operates under the whims of Internet service providers. While its voice services aren't exactly bandwidth hogs, 8x8 services also include video conferencing and other bandwidth-intensive services.

How big can 8x8 get before a telco decides it's a competitive threat or is using too much bandwidth? And at that point, would a service provider throttle back the service, degrading its quality, or demand more money to transmit its services?

We shouldn't have to ask. But the ruling Tuesday complicates how to protect such businesses. For all practical purposes, the FCC's rule-making process is stymied.

There are two options. Under the first, the FCC starts a process to reclassify broadband services as a different category of telecommunications so they fall under the agency's jurisdiction. The other avenue is for Congress to pass a law stating clearly that the FCC has jurisdiction over these matters.

Both strategies would most likely lead to ugly, messy political fights, massive lobbying campaigns, and legal challenges.

Derek Turner, research director for the Free Press, a consumer advocacy group, put the choice facing the FCC best when he told me:

"This ultimately is a moment of decision for FCC Chair Julius Genachowski," Turner said. "What is his legacy going to be? Is he going to be the one who oversees the FCC's authority declining? Or is he going to be the one who oversees the adoption of net neutrality and the national broadband plan? I think he's going to do the latter."

So do I. Even if the fight just got tougher, the FCC can't back down now.

Explore further: Quantenna promises 10-gigabit Wi-Fi by next year

3.6 /5 (5 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Comcast, FCC take net neutrality dispute to court

Jan 08, 2010

(AP) -- The Federal Communications Commission staked out new ground nearly three months ago when it began drafting rules that would require Internet providers to give equal treatment to all data flowing over ...

FCC loses key ruling on Internet 'neutrality'

Apr 06, 2010

(AP) -- A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission and could even hamper the government's plans to expand ...

FCC plans to move forward with broadband plan soon

Apr 08, 2010

(AP) -- The Federal Communications Commission said Thursday that it intends to move forward quickly with key recommendations in its national broadband plan - even though a federal appeals court this week undermined the agency's ...

Hurdles remain as FCC ponders Internet data rules

Oct 18, 2009

(AP) -- With Democrats in charge in Washington, supporters of so-called "net neutrality" rules seem poised to finally push through requirements that high-speed Internet providers give equal treatment to all ...

Six net neutrality principles proposed

Oct 26, 2009

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. voted last week to start a process to formulate rules that could force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to uphold six principles that would preserve ...

Recommended for you

Quantenna promises 10-gigabit Wi-Fi by next year

19 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Quantenna Communications has announced that it has plans for releasing a chipset that will be capable of delivering 10Gbps WiFi to/from routers, bridges and computers by sometime next year. ...

Tech giants look to skies to spread Internet

Apr 16, 2014

The shortest path to the Internet for some remote corners of the world may be through the skies. That is the message from US tech giants seeking to spread the online gospel to hard-to-reach regions.

Wireless industry makes anti-theft commitment

Apr 16, 2014

A trade group for wireless providers said Tuesday that the biggest mobile device manufacturers and carriers will soon put anti-theft tools on the gadgets to try to deter rampant smartphone theft.

Dish Network denies wrongdoing in $2M settlement

Apr 15, 2014

The state attorney general's office says Dish Network Corp. will reimburse Washington state customers about $2 million for what it calls a deceptive surcharge, but the satellite TV provider denies any wrongdoing.

Netflix's Comcast deal improves quality of video

Apr 14, 2014

Netflix's videos are streaming through Comcast's Internet service at their highest speeds in the past 17 months now that Netflix is paying for a more direct connection to Comcast's network.

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RubberBaron
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010
I can't see how anything but net neutrality will be enforced. Can you imagine a prior world where you couldn't attach a fax machine or an answerphone to your landline because most of your customers like to send you faxes or leave messages?

Net neutrality drives innovation, let it be.
ephemeral
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010
does anyone believe in the free market anymore?
Mesafina
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010
does anyone believe in the free market anymore?


What are you, economically religious? The idea of a truly free market is a joke. The free market, when left truly to it's own, is self-destructive. The formation of monopolies would very quickly see the end of your precious capitalism.

There is a place for open markets, and a place for society to regulate certain aspects of those markets. Anyone who believes that unregulated capitalism is the be all end all of social evolution is as delusional as a communist.

It is absolutely essential we enforce net-neutrality to offset the monopolizing of all internet business by those who control the main lines. Otherwise innovation will suffer and consumers will suffer. The only people who will benefit will be the stockholders of Comcast and AT&T.
migmigmig
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010
@Messafina: Yay!

Three cheers for enlightened centrism. This liberal vs conservative ballyhoo is getting super old.

Marxism is a 19th century response to 19th century Capitalism.

Lassiezfaire Corporatism is as foolish for an open society to adopt as Statist Socialism.

The difficulty, of course, is maintaining a proper balance between both sides.

It's much easier to just fall off the knife's edge into the bucket of wing-nuts on either the Right or the Left.

(Let's ask all the mourners in West Virginia today how much they believe "Safety Regulations" need to be discarded in order to allow their mining company to maximize their profits in a "self-regulating free market")
Husky
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010
net neutrality is like beer, its the cause and the solution to all problems, so yes, keep it
Shootist
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010
I can't see how anything but net neutrality will be enforced. Can you imagine a prior world where you couldn't attach a fax machine or an answerphone to your landline because most of your customers like to send you faxes or leave messages?

Net neutrality drives innovation, let it be.


You're either a young person or not of the US?

Back in the days of AT&T one had to purchase an additional phone line for a fax or modem to be in compliance with their licensing agreements. If they discovered a fax, modem or other non-compliant device they could terminate service.

I believe the marketplace drove the baby Bells and independent phone companies to abandon this approach.

Of course the US didn't rely on Leviathan Government (socialism; control of the market) so much even as few as 25 years ago.

More news stories

Sony's PlayStation 4 sales top seven million

Sony says it has sold seven million PlayStation 4 worldwide since its launch last year and admitted it can't make them fast enough, in a welcome change of fortune for the Japanese consumer electronics giant.

Robotics goes micro-scale

(Phys.org) —The development of light-driven 'micro-robots' that can autonomously investigate and manipulate the nano-scale environment in a microscope comes a step closer, thanks to new research from the ...

Biologists help solve fungi mysteries

(Phys.org) —A new genetic analysis revealing the previously unknown biodiversity and distribution of thousands of fungi in North America might also reveal a previously underappreciated contributor to climate ...