Last week I wrote that content owners’ decision to block access to TV content they had made available on the web based on recognizing which browser it was (in particular identifying and blocking Google TV) was a threat to net neutrality.   Scott Rafer objected that I was doing net neutrality (and my readers) a disservice by confounding it with “universal access” and Andy Idsinga commented that net neutrality was strictly about content transmission by ISPs.   I believe that both are wrong and want to clarify why.

First let’s start with Scott.  By suggesting that this is a danger to net neutrality, I am most definitely not turning it into a “universal access” issue, which is defined in telco regulation as “everyone can access the service somewhere, at a public place, thus also called public, community or shared access” and is related to the concept of “universal service,” which we know from POTS.   I am not in any way suggesting that the content providers have to give everyone a web browser at their home (universal service) or provide libraries with web browsers (universal access).  The government should, but that’s not the role of content providers.

Second, let’s talk about Andy’s point.  While it is true that in recent discussions net neutrality has been used in a very narrow fashion to talk only about traffic shaping by ISPs, that is not its history and is an unfortunate narrowing of the view.  Ironically, much of the broader view – which is highly relevant to what is going on now – was initially presented by then FCC Chairman Powell in 2005 (!) in his Net Freedoms speech (PDF) and here is the critical quote:

Freedom to Access Content. First, consumers should have access to their choice of legal content. Consumers have come to expect to be able to go where they want on high-speed connections, and those who have migrated from dial-up would presumably object to paying a premium for broadband if certain content were blocked. Thus, I challenge all facets of the industry to commit to allowing consumers to reach the content of their choice.

This clearly rules out denying access on the basis of which type of browser you use or whether that browser is built into your TV or happens to be on your laptop.  It is very worthwhile going back and reading the three additional freedoms.

Now I know that this never became the law, but it perfectly captures the original architecture of the web, which clearly separates layers from each other and keeps each layer of the architecture neutral with respect to the other layers.  Let’s remember why we care about this: net neutrality is critical to innovation.  That applies not just to the transport layer but also to the separation of server and browser.  I remember what it was like to browse the web with early versions of Mosaic and even Lynx.  A modern browser is about as similar to those as a Toyota Prius is to a Model T.   We owe that amazing pace of innovation to the fact that browser builders could innovate like crazy and still have access to the entire web.

Let’s make sure to keep it that way.

Last week I wrote that content owners’ decision to block access to TV content they had made available on the web based on recognizing which browser it was (in particular identifying and blocking Google TV) was a threat to net neutrality.   Scott Rafer objected that I was doing net neutrality (and my readers) a disservice by confounding it with “universal access” and Andy Idsinga commented that net neutrality was strictly about content transmission by ISPs.   I believe that both are wrong and want to clarify why.

First let’s start with Scott.  By suggesting that this is a danger to net neutrality, I am most definitely not turning it into a “universal access” issue, which is defined in telco regulation as “everyone can access the service somewhere, at a public place, thus also called public, community or shared access” and is related to the concept of “universal service,” which we know from POTS.   I am not in any way suggesting that the content providers have to give everyone a web browser at their home (universal service) or provide libraries with web browsers (universal access).  The government should, but that’s not the role of content providers.

Second, let’s talk about Andy’s point.  While it is true that in recent discussions net neutrality has been used in a very narrow fashion to talk only about traffic shaping by ISPs, that is not its history and is an unfortunate narrowing of the view.  Ironically, much of the broader view – which is highly relevant to what is going on now – was initially presented by then FCC Chairman Powell in 2005 (!) in his Net Freedoms speech (PDF) and here is the critical quote:

Freedom to Access Content. First, consumers should have access to their choice of legal content. Consumers have come to expect to be able to go where they want on high-speed connections, and those who have migrated from dial-up would presumably object to paying a premium for broadband if certain content were blocked. Thus, I challenge all facets of the industry to commit to allowing consumers to reach the content of their choice.

This clearly rules out denying access on the basis of which type of browser you use or whether that browser is built into your TV or happens to be on your laptop.  It is very worthwhile going back and reading the three additional freedoms.

Now I know that this never became the law, but it perfectly captures the original architecture of the web, which clearly separates layers from each other and keeps each layer of the architecture neutral with respect to the other layers.  Let’s remember why we care about this: net neutrality is critical to innovation.  That applies not just to the transport layer but also to the separation of server and browser.  I remember what it was like to browse the web with early versions of Mosaic and even Lynx.  A modern browser is about as similar to those as a Toyota Prius is to a Model T.   We owe that amazing pace of innovation to the fact that browser builders could innovate like crazy and still have access to the entire web.

Let’s make sure to keep it that way.