Network Neutrality: All data is treated equally
The simple definition of Network Neutrality is that all data on the internet is treated equally and on a first come, first serve basis. This is the way that the internet has been ever since it was created. Recently, however, some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have begun to selectively disrupt the communications of their subscribers. If these practices are allowed to continue it has the potential to destroy the fundamental freedoms that are so characteristic and unique to what we know as the internet.
The unique characteristic that the internet possess that no other form of mass media does is that anyone has the ability to communicate any opinion they have, regardless of their financial background. Everyone has the ability to post a blog entry, create a podcast, or even post video content that anyone else can view. The freedom that this has given to people is enormous. Suddenly the average Joe can write something that millions of people all around the world can read, instead of just the people in town.
The cost of entry in all other forms of mass media is probative to all but the rich and larger corporations. The cost of entry on the internet is virtually non-existent. A person can travel to the local community center or library, use a computer, get a freely hosted website, and begin creating content that can be viewed by countless numbers of people, all at no cost. This ability to spread ideas and knowledge so freely is unprecedented in all of history.
The advent of content delivery systems such as P2P protocols, Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and sites such as Youtube has been a great help to users to share ideas. The explosive use of such services has put a strain on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that are struggling to deal with all of this extra information traversing their networks. In order to maximize profits, instead of upgrading their network equipment to have more capacity some ISPs are instead reducing what subscribers can do with their connections. Comcast is a prime example of this.
Before the FCC got involved Comcast began to interrupt file transfers using the Bittorrent protocol, a protocol used to distribute large files among many people without the use of expensive servers. Because large file transfers make up a considerable amount of traffic on their network reducing the amount of traffic is to Comcast’s advantage. If a subscriber A of an internet service agrees to a certain quality of service, or certain speed of service, and their friend B subscribes to the same level or higher speed of service, then no matter what they are sending between each other their speed of transfer should never be below the speed that person A agreed to. Comcast was in effect telling their subscribers what they could and could not do using their internet connection. This is similar to a postal service that only allows you to only send bills and coupons in the mail, but not singing birthday cards or thank you notes. The user should be able to send what ever content they want at the level of service that they are paying for!
Some ISPs are proposing to take this practice one step further and set up “express lanes” on the internet in order to cope with extra traffic. This would allow subscribers to view sites like CNN.com, MSN.com, and FOX.com at the speed that they are paying for while sites such as FACEBOOK.com and YOUTUBE.com are only allotted half of the connection speed. This will reduce the amount of traffic on the internet and save the ISPs money, but is extremely detrimental to the freedom of the internet. Suddenly large corporations can pay ISPs an agreed upon amount to allow their content to be on the express lanes of the internet while the little guy who can not afford such an agreement is left in the slow lane. If AT&T created their own video content website and did not want to have to compete with Youtube, AT&T could simply slow down their subscribers’ connection to Youtube. If Youtube videos take a long time to load and AT&T’s videos do not, the subscribers would most like stop using Youtube and switch to AT&T’s service. This would actually turn the internet into something very similar to cable TV. The internet would loose it’s characteristic two way communication and would be reduced to nothing more than cable TV on the computer.
In conclusion, Network Neutrality is the practice that mandates that all traffic on the internet be treated equally and on a first come, first serve basis. Network Neutrality is important for the continued freedom of the internet. Some Internet Service Providers have begun to treat some forms of communication on the internet differently then other forms, infringing on people’s ability to share ideas how they want to. Under Network Neutrality the internet is basically a series of dumb pipes, sending data to and from destinations without regard to what form the data is in or what information is contained within. Without Network Neutrality the internet could become very similar to cable TV where communication becomes very much unidirectional. Hopefully raising public awareness of this very serious issue will help protect people’s freedoms on the internet.