Tuesday, August 10, 2010

What is Net Neutrality?

A lot of talk has been taking place recently over an issue of Net Neutrality. Typically, you'll hear this term slung around in accusatory tone from one ISP to a larger, or from an advocacy group against the super-giants, Verizon and Google to name a few. It's a debate that, at it's core, echos the tradition in American spirit that empowers the "little guy" in his never-ending fight against the tyrannical "big guy."

Ok, that may be an oversimplification, but if you read from the advocate's perspective, that's the tale you'll likely hear. Of course, from the other side of the table, the non-regulated, invisible hand, free market capitalist flag is flying high. So which is it? Tyrants vs Serfs? Socialists vs Capitalists? I'm torn... I'm a capitalist, and a "little guy," where do I fall?

To understand Net Neutrality, you must first understand how the Internet works... no, not the technical side of it, the commercial side. The side the makes (and costs) money. You see, the Internet is not some public infrastructure, owned and provided by the Government to the People as a tenet of citizenship and utility for daily life. It's a product, developed at a cost, and provided for a fee.

The question, then, is whether these intrepid companies who have built, acquired, or otherwise come to own (hence: control) said infrastructure at their own expense have the right to then control and prioritize, or even censor, the traffic which it carries. Depending on your bias, you may be quick to jump to a seemingly obvious conclusion. The independent spirit says, "yes, it's theirs, they can do as they wish." But the guardian of rights begins to question, "who gets left out, and why?"

Opponents of Net Neutrality argue from a posture of territorial rights. The ISP's and telecom companies who own the assets which power this beast we call the Internet certainly should have rights to control it's use. In order to ensure the profit that they absolutely require in order to sustain this infrastructure we've come to know, love, and depend on, they need some level of control.

What control would they place, you may ask? Well, de-prioritizing certain networks or other providers, for starters--those who might be competitors. Or, it's conceivable (and has even been accused) that certain content--websites, videos, ads, etc.--which promote the competition or any cause contrary to the profit-seeking purposes of the ISP. This begins to cross into censorship, control of information, and (ironically) a threat to the notion of free market and free speech.

Enter the opposing side. Now you see how the debate swirls. What, if any, control imposed by such infrastructure-backing corporations would be too much? Where is the line? How "neutral" do we need to be in order to be "fair?" And, of course, the ultimate question is: who, then should decide and enforce such a set of rules?

As I've said, I'm torn. I can argue fervently in either camp. What do you think?

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", Google, Internet, ISP, Net Neutrality, Telecommunication, Verizon