Network Neutrality
Perhaps the most impressive technology to evolve in the 20th century is the internet. The internet has evoked a number of great metaphors about being the great democracy, the only true free press, and so on. However, the internet is also a business, and once Al Gore finished “inventing” the internet, the money began to flow. Everyone wanted to connect, everyone had something to say, and everyone wanted to make a buck.
Living in Washington, I am often subjected to political adverts and lobbying efforts. One of the more recent causes to garner the attention of K Street is the issue of network neutrality. I hate to say it, but I’m not sure what the big deal is.
To begin with, I’m not sure if a consistent definition of net neutrality exists. A large part of the controversy, from what I understand, is that there are two competing theories on how the internet should operate. One is that the internet should be a “dumb network”; that is, the internet is simply a mechanism to transmit data packets from Point A to Point B. The dumb network theory mandates that ISPs should function as common carriers, simply maintaining the infrastructure.
The other theory on how the internet should operate is a “smart network”. Under this theory, the internet should not be blind to the content of the data. The network should be able to recognize the content in the data packet and prioritize it based upon tolerable latency.
Network neutrality is the theory that the internet functions best as a dumb network. This view is advocated by a wide variety of groups, including large technology corporations and internet utopians. Advocates of network neutrality look for government regulation in order to preserve these principles of network neutrality. Network neutrality proponents argue that to discriminate would stifle innovation and creativity, the lifeblood of technology evolution and commerce.
Those opposing network neutrality, including telcos and civil libertarians, argue that the government has no position in regulating the internet. Many people argue that the law of unintended consequences will actually make things far worse than if there had been no action at all. Telcos in particular have an interest in protecting their investments. They argue that to declare ISPs to be common carriers will (if it hasn’t already) create a tragedy of the commons problem, where too much access for too little will cause the internet to be crippled by its own weight.
I think much of the dispute arises from the wide range of metaphors and idealism that has evolved about the internet. To some respect, this is a serious consideration. For the average user, the actual mechanics of the internet do not matter. All that really matters is that the content they want and the functions they desire work. Internet utopians hold the internet to be a magical place where people are free to be creative and expressive.
In my opinion, there is some merit to the argument put forth by advocates of network neutrality; however, I’m not sure that an absolute ban on data discrimination is the ideal solution. Current upcoming technologies, such as video streaming and VoIP, are very bandwidth intensive. In order to improve network integrity and application reliability, there needs to be some inspection of the content. What the telcos should not be allowed to do is use their position to discriminate against different content providers. For example, AT&T should not be allowed to enter into an exclusive deal with, say, Yahoo that would permit Yahoo to have significant priority over Google would have severe impacts on the online marketplace. This is the appropriate area for governmental regulation.
