Net neutrality is a much debated topic when discussing the future of the Internet. But what exactly is net neutrality? The controversy outdates its namesake, but the term was first coined by Colombia Law School professor Tim Wu and refers to the principle of an unbiased Internet. In simple terms, the principle states that Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable should treat all data on the Internet equally; this means they cannot discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, site, platform, or even application. In essence, ISPs are expected to “provide the pipes, but should have no say in what passes through them.” This is currently the way the Internet works, but several ISPs are pushing for what is called a “closed Internet” in which they can regulate traffic and potentially filter content. Advocates point out that this gives providers too much power outside of their jurisdiction while ISPs counterclaim that data discrimination actually guarantees quality of service.
There are many freedoms to an open Internet that most people enjoy without realizing: lack of restrictions means anyone can access (almost) any part of the Internet with the guarantee that no one is given special treatment over anyone else. This means that anyone e-mailing, file sharing, instant messaging (IM), or video conferencing from the comfort of their own home receives the same treatment as a large organization paying more for the same service. ISPs are attempting to change this status quo by legislating “Internet fast lanes” in which they can offer content providers faster service that distinguishes them from individuals. Neutrality supporters counter with the argument that leaving transfer rates to the discretion of the ISPs will only create an environment that heavily favors corporate alliances and destroys free market capitalism. Who is right? Who is in the wrong? It is easy to slap a company agenda onto the motivations of the ISPs, but it may be important to consider the nature of the Internet itself in order to draw more concrete conclusions.
Modern day Internet behaves similarly to road traffic, so much so that the word traffic today is just as likely to refer to web traffic as it is street traffic. The accuracy of the analogy is very well deserved. Many people use roads for many different purposes but everyone experiences the same service without prejudice, regardless of whether they are a taxi conducting business or a family on a relaxing cross country trip (with the exception of some emergency services). Continuing this metaphor, implementing the “fast lane” proposal by ISPs is the functional equivalent of the government granting paving companies the power to designate express lanes as well as collect fees for their usage. After all, paving companies lay down the foundations for the road systems just as much as service providers lay the foundations to access the Internet. But something already seems out of place; we pay taxes to the government for the construction of roads, not their usage. But that’s not all. Lack of road neutrality, a “closed road”, would also allow paving companies the power to deny access to places they do not want people to visit. This not only infringes on the rights of drivers, but it also makes it difficult for business to communicate directly to consumers by inserting a middle man that, arguably, doesn’t need to exist. In addition, designation of fast lanes for businesses means fewer resources to serve those who travel in the slower lanes, whose users number far greater. Although ISPs claim that discrimination of data ensures quality of service, the larger issue here seems to be that Internet providing does not seem to be a service type that warrants continued management past its provision; this becomes apparent when the service is translated into a real life system like road traffic. The freedom to use and drive on roads seems to be a right expected just as much as an impartial Internet.
dzaragoz 