The net neutrality debate: A user's guide

Net neutrality has been called many things, from “a solution in search of a problem,” by lobbying group Freedom Works, to “vital for the functioning of democracy,” by the Consumer Federation of America. A quick Google trends search (pictured) shows that the issue Google Trends data comparing net neutrality queries with other popular issues: Evan Banks, American Observerstill takes a back seat in the public’s eye when compared to other issues du jour, such as climate change, censorship, privacy, and even the role of the federal reserve bank.

Despite a mostly apathetic (or uninitiated) public, paid and pro bono proponents for and against neutrality have been extremely vocal in their concerns, objections, and support of neutrality mandates.

But just what is it that gets these policy geeks and techno-wonks so fired up?

What is net neutrality, anyway?

Net neutrality -- short for network neutrality -- is the idea that all information swapped around on the Internet is given the same,or a neutral, priority. This means that a photo from Flickr would be uploaded with the same priority as a Google query  or a BitTorrent download.

Neutrality doctrine supposedly assigns no priority for any packet's importance, use, destination or origin and would theoretically guarantee that no internet service provider would be able to throttle a connection based on content or bandwidth usage.

Think of it this way: rather than a series of tubes, imagine the Internet under neutrality as a highway where everyone is traveling, not at the same speed, but with the same sense of self-importance.

No one would be merging in and out of traffic on a whim of their own fancy, but everyone, including ambulances, police, and other emergency vehicles, would instead take turns when it came to changing lanes and letting other people in.

There would be no special HOV lanes for those willing to shell out the extra money for a priority lane, but there would also be no default "slow lane" for normal traffic.

To use a different metaphor, as Craigslist founder and net neutrality advocate Craig Newmark explains, "Imagine if you tried to order a pizza and the phone company said AT&T's preferred pizza vendor is Domino's. Press one to connect to Domino's now. If you would still like to order from your neighborhood pizzeria, please hold for three minutes while Domino's guaranteed orders are placed."

Some take it further, saying that without guaranteed net neutrality held in place by laws, in addition to a tiered internet service, providers would actually go so far as to create their own versions of popular content providers like Facebook and Google and would charge extra to access the "real" thing. 

Not surprisingly, net neutrality has driven a wedge between the largely free content providers (Google, Amazon, eBay, Skype and other VoIP services, such as YouTube, etc.) and subscription service providers (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc.).

The debate also has some of the Internet's pioneers on opposing sides: Vinton Cerf, Google's Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, and Tim Berners-Lee are fervent supporters of neutrality, while Bob Kahn, who invented TCP/IP with Cerf, and Dave Farber, the oft-cited "grandfather of the Internet," oppose net neutrality on the grounds that regulations will stifle the innovation that is an integral part of keeping the 'net relevant to society's changing needs.

Arguments For and Against

Opponents of net neutrality say that we don't have neutrality now and we're none the worse for the wear. They say that if ISPs started prioritizing or throttling traffic, as Comcast famously did to its BitTorrent traffic in late 2006 and early 2007, the public outcry would be fierce and consumers would ultimately switch service providers, a self-correcting mechanism.

Moreover, opponents point to the great success of so-called "closed" development platforms, saying that while values such as open access and transparency are important, proprietary elements have also played a large role in today communications technology.

The Technology Liberation Front is a group blog "dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology." Ryan Radia, a tech policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who also writes for TLF, gave the iPhone as a premier example of a closed platform that has been wildly successful in recent years.

"Wireless subscribers have voted with their wallets," says Radia. "In the intensely competitive wireless market, the iPhone's success shows that innovation can occur, and even thrive, within the confines of proprietary ecosystems."

Skeptics are also wary of additional regulations in a previously relatively ungoverned emerging market.

"One need only look to the FCC's widely criticized telephone and cable regulations to witness how rigid federal mandates can thwart high-tech evolution and steer the market in unnatural directions."

Proponents of net neutrality, however, argue that there is a duopoly at work in the industry. They say that there is little difference between DSL/fiber offerings and cable, and that the market is not sufficiently competitive enough to protect consumers. Proponents say that regulation formalizing network neutrality into law is necessary to stop phone and cable companies from traffic discrimination.

Save the Internet, an initiative of the policy group Free Press, is a netroots campaigner for net neutrality. Adam Lynn, a policy analyst at Free Press, says that the FCC isn't "rushing to regulate" on net neutrality, they're just following their mandate to act on the issue.

"Any seasoned net neutrality observer knows these issues have been debated for many years," Lynn says. "Complaints about a 'rush' are just attempts to delay and distract" the FCC from taking action.

Recent Action

But taking action is just what the Federal Communications Commission appears to be doing. With Chairman Julius Genachowski at the helm, the FCC announced its intent to proceed with new regulations several months ago (video right top) and in the meantime has laid down guideline rules for the telecommunications industry to follow.

President Obama has also stated several times during his campaign (video right bottom) that he supports the idea of net neutrality regulation "to ensure free and full exchange of information," and said that he "will take a back seat to no one" on the issue.

Meanwhile, Representatives Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) have revived a bill from last year that among other things would formally protect net neutrality under the Communications Act of 1934. The bill, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R.3458) is currently sitting with the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has also introduced his own bill, the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 (S.1836) that would stop the FCC from regulating the Internet further. This bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.