What is Net Neutrality?
Simply put, it's the concept that all Internet Traffic should be treated equally. Those promoting Net Neutrality, however, have established three general definitions, as follows:
- Absolute non-discrimination: University of Michigan Law School professor Susan Crawford "believes that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for quality-of-service considerations."
- Limited discrimination without Quality of Service tiers: Allowing for QoS discrimination as long as no special fee's are charged for higher-quality service.
- Limited discrimination and tiers: Allowing tiered fees; higher fees for higher QoS and lower fees for lower QoS, as long as all get equal access - receiving the QoS level that we each pay for.
Net Neutrality nothing new
The current concept of "Net Neutrality" has its roots in the The Pacific Telegraph Act of 1860 which created a Federal subsidy to build a coast-to-coast telegraph line. Language included within the Act stated:
"messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority ..."
What does this mean to all of us?
On one side of the issue, the side that opposes "Absolute Non-discrimination", sit the major Internet Service Providers, cellular providers and hardware producers. On the other side sit consumer advocates, web-based businesses, and a few technology companies.
So, basically, here's the two sides: The opponents of Net Neutrality have made a significant investment in the infrastructure that we all use to access the Internet and they want to make a profit on that investment. The proponents of Net Neutrality have, in many cases, created businesses that rely on Internet access and any increase in cost will result in a reduction in revenue; they don't want their business to be entirely at the mercy of one ISP or another.
Both sides, in my opinion, have legitimate points in their favor.
If a company chooses to make a significant investment in an infrastructure, via which others will have the opportunity to profit, then they, in turn, should be able to charge and profit accordingly; as well as control, to some extent, the way in which it is used.
On the other hand, if that infrastructure exists and a company chooses to take advantage of the infrastructure to build or enhance a business then they should not be held hostage, over-charged or discriminated against by those controlling the infrastructure.
Internet Toll Roads
Regulation of the Internet, in and of itself, won't automatically spell doom but it's definitely something that needs to be carefully considered by any lawmaker endeavoring to craft regulatory legislation.
The opponents of Net Neutrality want to engage in "Deep Packet Inspection" that would allow for preferential treatment of Internet traffic, or tiered service. Using this Deep Packet Inspection they could choose to slow, or entirely disallow, certain types of Internet traffic. Conversely, they could choose to allow all Internet traffic but charge prohibitively high fees for certain traffic originators or types of traffic.
They argue that, without an ability to charge whatever fees they choose, or prioritize traffic in ways that benefit them, they'll have little incentive to invest in newer and more innovative infrastructure and infrastructure technology.
Proponents of Net Neutrality, on the other hand, believe that allowing every ISP to determine, on their own, how they deliver traffic would severly limit the growth of Internet services. According to Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney:
Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use ... Most of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started out in their garages with great ideas and little capital. This is no accident. Network neutrality protections minimized control by the network owners, maximized competition and invited outsiders in to innovate. Net neutrality guaranteed a free and competitive market for Internet content.
VoIP Services a good example
VoIP services have been at the forefront of the Net Neutrality argument because, in many cases, they've allowed users to bypass a telecommunication provider's services. Most recently, Skype announced that their iPhone app would allow users to make VoIP calls using an iPhone. At the moment, AT&T is blocking the use of the Skype app so iPhone users wanting to make VoIP calls will be relegated to Wi-Fi hotspots. According to one article:
Skype's introduction of its VOIP service for the iPhone may well be the tipping point for wireless network neutrality. While the right of hardwired Internet users to use the applications and services of their choice has been established by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), network neutrality for wireless networks is still an unresolved issue.
Conclusion
This is, to me, a very interesting arrgument. While I lean towards supporting the concept of "Absolute Non-Discrimination" I can see certain situations in which Limited Quality Service discrimination might be of value; even preferred. One such issue is with VoIP service. Using the 802.11e WiFi standard, for instance, allows ISPs to give priority to VoIP calls - giving callers better call quality. This seems to be an issue in which successful regulatory legislation will leave both sides feeling as though they got the short end of the stick.
Thank you, it's very admirable description about VoIP Services it might be very kind for students.
Recently i needed resume writer. To my adroitest surprise, resume was honest the price I paid for it.
Posted by: Alex | September 20, 2009 at 10:53 PM