Net Neutrality

               As summarized by The Verge, net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) cannot charge customers different rates to receive different network performance and priority. For example, AT&T cannot charge Netflix higher rates because they push much greater amounts of data through AT&T’s (and others’) network. The Verge explains that:

“The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. ‘A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management,’”

When the FCC mentions “paid prioritization,” they are referring to the practice of configuring the network to favor certain traffic based on how much was paid for that traffic or how much its speedy transmission might benefit the network provider. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “the FCC produced rules that we could support… We want the internet to live up to its promise, fostering innovation, creativity, and freedom. We don’t want regulations that will turn ISPs into gatekeepers, making special deals… and inhibiting new competition, innovation, and expression.”

                Basically, The Verge, the EFF, the Reddit community, and millions of other entities and individuals argue for net neutrality because they believe that the internet should be an open and unencumbered medium for the transmission of ideas, knowledge, and entertainment. Supporters of net neutrality suggest that prioritization, throttling, and suppression of certain packets traveling through a network will result in the loss of the freedom of ideas and data which is so critical to their vision of the internet. Detractors of net neutrality, including the woefully misguided Forbes contributor Jeffrey Dorfman, suggest that net neutrality flies in the face of free-market capitalist economics. Dorfman gives this analogy: “This is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different.” Although I too am a staunch supporter of the free market, Dorfman’s argument makes absolutely no sense to me. Just because content creators and consumers might be willing to pay for better and faster transmission of data doesn’t mean that ISPs should make this an available feature.

It has become increasingly clear in the last decade that computing is becoming a utility commodity, much as the same as electric power, natural gas, or water. Electric companies aren’t allowed to charge certain people higher rates because they draw more current from the grid, nor are they allowed to charge (x) dollars for 120 volt service and (x*2) dollars for 240 volt service. Rather, electric companies simply charge customers a single rate based on how much power they draw from the grid. Users of electricity know that as long as they pay this one rate, they will receive the electric power they need. Similarly, water providers are not allowed to charge higher rates for “more pure water.” This would be an abomination as it would directly and negatively impact the health of people with fewer means. If net neutrality didn’t exist, the sound operation of the economy would be in jeopardy. Modern free-market economics assumes that consumers behave at least somewhat rationally. Central to consumers’ rationality is their reasonable access to all potential information before making consumption decisions. Net neutrality protects reasonable access to all potential information. Clearly, since computing is becoming a public utility and since it allows sound operation of the economy, net neutrality is necessary. The internet is indeed a public service and fair access should be a basic right.