“Net Neutrality” is a controversial subject that is being discussed more every day. Wikipedia defines network neutrality as a “principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.” At first glance, supporting Net Neutrality may be a no-brainer; however, taking a second look and digging a bit deeper may stir up different feelings.
Consider the people that rarely access the internet; the people that only go on to pay a few bills or to buy airline tickets. These people pay the same amount that heavy users of the internet pay. This same price applies to once a week users, and the users that play online games and those that download music along with other content 24/7. This begs the question, should carriers be able to sell multi-tiered access to heavy users?
Here is an example of what that multi-tiered pricing structure might look like:
Now consider large internet content companies, for example Amazon, eBay, and Google, that use much more bandwidth than other sites such as your neighborhood pizza place or a clothing store. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski states, “Under the guise of ‘neutrality’, these internet content companies are trying to use government to prevent the owners of Internet infrastructure from being able to rationally set prices for the use of that infrastructure.” Is it fair that these large internet content companies use such a high percentage of available bandwidth and add more high-bandwidth content, such as movies and music, yet are not charged more?
Like every subject matter debated, there are pros and cons. Someone supporting Net Neutrality can argue that the Internet was founded on egalitarian principles, that all network traffic should be treated the same and that all users should have free and equal access to the network. Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, states in his weblog “I hope that Congress can protect Net Neutrality, so I can continue to innovate in the internet space. I want to see the explosion of innovations happening out there on the Web, so diverse and so exciting, continue unabated.” If discriminatory pricing mechanisms, based on what appear to be capitalistic supply and demand principles are implemented, would it drastically change the bottom-up structure of the Internet as we know it today? Would the internet remain the vibrant, robust e-commerce environment it is today?
In actuality, has Net Neutrality already begun to diminish? Within Comcast’s unlimited service terms and conditions, they reserve the right to terminate any customer who uses over 250GB of bandwidth a month. Is this a glimpse of what is to come? Supporters of Net Neutrality would argue that this is an unfair tactic whereas people opposing Net Neutrality would see the validity in Comcast’s service terms.
The issue of Net Neutrality is of vital importance for the future of the Internet. Where do you stand on Net Neutrality?