Net Neutrality: The Legality of Discrimination

Disclaimer: I had a helluva time deciphering all the technical aspects of this topic, so this entry might be mistake-heavy. I'll accept corrections if any need to be made.

- - -

Network Neutrality (or simply Net Neutrality), as defined by Wikipedia is as follows:

"...traditionally meant the neutrality of the basic internet protocols with respect to the diverse ways in which they can be use. This is more often called 'content neutrality' or 'application neutrality.' "

Okay, so that's very jargon-heavy. Allow me to simplify: Net Neutrality means internet service providers (aka ISPs, like Shaw, Videotron, Bell, etc.) cannot control how you surf the net. As it stands right now, you choose which sites you want to visit. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs can decide which internet content has the highest priority. For example, an ISP could sign an exclusive agreement with a content provider which stipulates that all clients of that ISP must surf that content provider's sites, effectively preventing other content providers to have a fair share of the market.

How does one decide what internet content is more important than another? That's a good question, the answer is that content providers (which can be anything from personal websites to corporate businesses operating on the internet) pay ISPs fees and the higher the fees, the more "important" their content becomes. The other angle to this, is that content importance could be decided based solely on preference and not price. Someone in charge of an ISP might decide that content on Wikipedia is not reliable and thus not worth their clients' attention or patronage. I don't know about you, but that's a pretty scary thought.

Critics of Net Neutrality claim that deciding content based on fees is a legitimate practice, or as they put it, "different levels of service for different fees...as long as pricing is rational and non-discriminatory." This then begs the question of how pricing will be regulated and kept "rational" as well as "non-discriminatory." Are there laws in place which govern the pricing of what might be called Net Involvement? There are probably laws which govern the pricing of services provided by ISPs, but can those laws be transposed to the concept of Net Pick-And-Choose? And laws concerning discrimination, do they apply to this Net Neutrality debate? (In all likelihood these are questions to which answers may already exist, I'm just putting them out there for discussion's sake.)

The discussion which has been going back and forth between those who support Net Neutrality (Neutralists) and those who oppose Net Neutrality (Non-Neutralists) is an interesting one. Neutralists argue that non-Net Neutrality is distortionary, in that any practice which regulates transmission of content distorts the inherent flexibility of the mode of transport. Non-Neutralists argue that Net Neutrality discourages investments in networks with better technology. They also use the argument of the economics of congestion. The internet as a communal network is unregulated, thus there is the opportunity for collective action. So a network provider needs to consider the difference between the users and the usage in order to maximize network performance. An example to illustrate this principle is bandwidth usage. If a user is using too much bandwidth, then the provider should be allowed to limit that user's bandwidth usage. The argument in favour of Net Neutrality this is that blocking access to content is more distortionary than simply limiting a user's bandwidth. Charging them for the additional usage makes sense, except companies have resisted this because they claim it is not technically feasible and too pricy by comparison. It's pretty convoluted, but both sides carry a certain level of merit.

What really strikes me as odd is the way legislation is coming into play. Neutralists are seeking additional legislation to maintain the status quo while Non-Neutralists are fighting for the government to take a "hands-off" approach. Generally it's the other way around, odd no? The other thing which I find kind of odd is that the Internet is inherently global, and yet this discussion has been terrestrial-network-centered and increasingly centered on the United States of America.

And now, my opinion on the matter at hand. I support the Neutralists because allowing non-Net Neutrality to be legal is problematic for users. As a user, I want to be able to visit all sites without distortion of my Internet service. Furthermore, if the aforementioned example of content providers signing exclusivity agreements with ISPs comes to pass, then any ISP which has a large client base and signs with multiple content providers will effectively dominate the market, thereby creating a monopoly. Users who want access to most of the major content providers will obviously transfer over to the ISP with the most coverage.

Additionally, I disagree with how non-Net Neutrality will affect the Internet-based marketplace. Suppose I want to start a small online business and I want equal share of the internet traffic. I then have to fork out additional cash to ISPs in order for them to treat my site as an equal to a much larger business with more resources at hand. Introducing legislation to support Net Neutrality helps the little guys who need help the most.

All we can do now is wait and see how things in Congress work out. There are websites out there that are looking for support in convincing congressmen to push the legislation, so if you're a Neutralist, go get 'em!