Network neutrality: balancing innovation and democratic internet access

Network neutrality has become one of the most discussed issues in communications and the Internet today. As one pundit states network neutrality is "...a large, unresolved debate..." (Mark R.) the issue is so contemporary and hotly debated because the outcome of this debate could have a direct and far-reaching impact on the future of the present concept of the Internet as a democratic zone for free exploration and enterprise. One of the central arguments for network neutrality is that the demise of network neutrality would, many assert, mean that innovation and accessibly for all would be stifled. "The Internet must remain open and accessible to all" (Mark R.) the counter argument to network neutrality that will also be explored in this paper is that the present state of network neutrality is preventing technical and business innovations.

What is Network Neutrality?

A definition of network neutrality is, "...a guiding principle of the Internet which ensures that all users are entitled to access content and services or run applications and devices of their choice. (What Is Net Neutrality?) the central point about network neutrality is that it is seen to further and encourage innovation among service providers, "... while preserving the independence and accessibility of the World Wide Web." (What Is Net Neutrality?) in other words, many pundits see the present state of online content and growth as being largely a result of net neutrality. In this atmosphere of non-interference "...consumers enjoy limitless choices without interference or content discrimination by the network owners." (What Is Net Neutrality?) in short, network neutrality is the non-interference of network carriers and companies in the free access and choices of users and consumers. In this model of the Internet the individual and not the corporation or company chooses the best routes to content and to business.

The opposite state of affairs exits in a non-neutral system of networks. In this system the carriers and companies are allowed to select content providers, give preference to some and enter into deals with others for special privileges on the network.

In essence the theory of a non-neutral network takes the control and choice of content from the user and places it in the hands of the company and network controllers.

There are two philosophies of Internet usage that are in conflict here. The cable and phone companies claim that network control is necessary in many ways for the growth of the industry and there are practical reasons why it is important for network companies to select content providers. This philosophy of selectivity and control is opposed by the ethos of those in favor of a neutral network; who see corporate control as a transgression of the democratic freedom of choice and against the very ethos of the Internet as an accessible and open source of information and trading. As Randall Stross, writing for the New York Times (January 15, 2006) states "Any proposed change in [the network carrier's] role should be examined carefully, especially if the change entails expanding the carrier's power to pick and choose where bits come from - a power that has the potential to abrogate network neutrality." (Stross R.)

In more practical terms the importance of network neutrality as an essential factor in the growth and development of the Internet is expressed by Internet pundits like David Isenberg. "A hobbyist collecting Pez dispensers could develop the idea to become Ebay. A couple of Stanford students could start Google and build a better search engine. Two guys in Europe could assemble a handful of programmers to invent Skype and threaten the trillion-dollar annual global tel-economy. "(Internet: Freedom or Privilege?)

According to Isenberg and many others, the implementation of a non-neutral network system would be direct threat to these kinds of innovation.

The arguments for and against neutral networks

As the above sections have indicated, there is a strong and often emotional response to the issue of doing away with neutral networks. The battle for a neutral network system is seen my many commentators as being in the same category as the fight for individual freedom and freedom of speech. David Isenberg encapsulates this strongly felt position to any deviance from a neutral network. "Just as Freedom of Speech means that, with very few limitations, nobody has the right to tell somebody else what to say, so should Internet freedom mean that gatekeepers should not control Internet applications or content." (Internet: Freedom or Privilege?) http://isen.com/blog/2006/01/internet-freedom-or-privilege.html. Acodobgf" According to this position, companies and corporations who wish to institute a non-neutral system are seen as creating serious barriers to individual and entrepreneurial growth as well as denying democratic rights.

However the telephone and cable companies who argue against a neutral network system state that a non-neutral system will in fact provide greater incentives for development. Their argument is also based on the legal view that they have the right to know and discern what content travels through their networks and to be able to change or select this content "based on this knowledge." (Internet: Freedom or Privilege?) http://isen.com/blog/2006/01/internet-freedom-or-privilege.html. Acodobgf" They have also instituted court actions which revolve around the view that the Internet is an information service but not an essential infrastructure; therefore "...gatekeepers can decide who has privilege to use their network. "(Internet: Freedom or Privilege?) http://isen.com/blog/2006/01/internet-freedom-or-privilege.html. Acodobgf" These companies have also."..shaped legislation before the U.S. Congress that would protect telephone company Internet systems with special carve-outs for voice and video services, but burden innovators with federal registration" (Internet: Freedom or Privilege?)

If these actions bring about a non-neutral network system then one could find that certain companies and services are privileged above others. For example, Yahoo may override search requests intended for Google or "... Amazon's Web site seems sluggish compared with eBay's." (Stern) in essence this would mean that the larger companies may receive the right to alter the way that users access and view information on the Internet.

On the hand there are those critics who see the Internet as being already biased and selective. They consider the ideal of neutrality to be an unrealistic concept and claim that there no such thing as neutrality in the competitive online market.

The Internet is incredibly competitive. There is never neutrality in a competitive environment...Threats to neutrality are all over the architecture, usually at the bottlenecks...And don't forget that some forms of discrimination already exist on the Internet, such as with spam-blocking techniques.

4. Conclusion

Experts like Isenberg make some very cogent points with regard to the importance of retaining a neutral network system. This extract is quoted at some length as it summarizes many of the issues surrounding the retention of neutral networks.

The Internet's astounding growth in usefulness, in number of users, and in traffic quantity is due, precisely, to, "the freedom to use this connection without limitations." Its success comes from Internet users' ability to send and receive virtually any string of 1s and 0s. For the last decade, no gatekeeper has stood between the user and the Internet to slow (or speed) the 1s and 0s based on their source, destination or meaning -the Internet treats each bit the same as every other. As a result, anybody could try out a new idea, however harebrained, without crossing a ponderous permission barrier.

Internet: Freedom or Privilege?)

The point that is repeatedly made is that a neutral network is essential for experimentation and that experimentation is a prerequisite for a developing and dynamic creative Internet. The specter of discrimination and interference in the principles and running of the Internet are also condemned by a wide range of technical and Internet experts. As Time Wu states: "That's what would happen if discrimination reigned on the Internet: a transformation from a market where innovation rules to one where deal-making rules. or, a market where firms rush to make exclusive agreements with at&T and Verizon instead of trying to improve their products." (Wu)

The view opposing non-neutral networks is also articulated by one of the founders of the Internet, Vinton G. Cerf. "Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success. "(Prepared Statement of Vinton G. Cerf...)

While the cable and telephone companies do present some cogent practical and legal points, yet their rationale cannot measure up to the serious issues of democratic freedom and free access to information and content that a neutral network ensures. While there is no perfect solution to this problem probably a middle ground could be worked out where the companies receive some control but do not infringe on the essential rights of freedom of expression and information.