There’s some talk going around the Internet (or more specifically, the Blogosphere) these days about “Net Neutrality,” so I thought I’d take a moment to touch upon the subject.<\/p>\n
First off, it is important to understand that the Internet is just a collection of various networks, all hooked together with the same protocol (TCP\/IP, to be specific). There are a LOT of networks – hundreds of thousands – and some of the biggest ones are owned by big communications companies (i.e. AT&T, Verizon, etc.). In fact, some of the biggest parts of the Internet (the “backbone,” which carries a majority of Internet traffic) are owned by single companies.<\/p>\n
Now, most people are blissfully unaware of these facts, because the Internet is connected in an “open” manner – that is, no single network section discriminates against traffic moving through the network. It’s a lot like the a highway system – you might go between states on your journey, but when you get to the border, nothing special happens – you just keep going. Ditto with the Internet – you go to a web site, and the information comes from the site to your computer, probably traveling across several different networks along the way – but you don’t notice it, because nothing happens when you traverse network boundaries. That’s what “open” means.<\/p>\n
Lately, however, some big communications companies have suggested that they’d like to be able to charge people for traveling across their network – or even deny certain people (or data) access to their network. To continue with my highway analogy, this would be like getting to a state border on the highway and having to go through a checkpoint. Some people might have “Fast Lane”-like tags that let them go right through, while others might be turned away at the border for various and sundry reasons (like not being a “citizen” – i.e. customer – of the state – i.e. communications company).<\/p>\n
Think about that for a moment. Imagine trying to drive to visit someone a few states away, but being unable to do so, because one of the states you need to cross doesn’t let non-citizens (non-customers) onto its roads. You end up having to take a hugely round-about way to get to your destination – maybe you even have to go by ship around the world, just to get to another state!<\/p>\n
This is the essence of the argument of Net Neutrality. Communications companies say they want to be able to charge people for access to their networks – even though those networks are part of the so-called “public” Internet.<\/p>\n
Consider this: imagine that Net Neutrality was lost, and we had to pay for accessing different portions of the Internet. Let’s say that I’m a Verizon customer. I want to go to Google and look something up. However, let’s say that Google has bought it’s Internet access through AT&T. Since I’m not an AT&T customer, I don’t get access (or I might get a lower-quality access that’s much slower).<\/p>\n
The implications of this are terrifying. As someone who practically lives on the Internet, I can’t think of a worse thing to happen than this sort of scheme to be approved by Congress (which, by the way, is already considering such a measure).<\/p>\n
The impact of this isn’t just limited to individual consumers, though. Businesses – especially smaller businesses, which are increasingly dependant on the Internet for connectivity with suppliers, merchants, customers, banks, etc. – would be effectively “taxed” out of existance by such a scheme.<\/p>\n
Some people try to defend the communication companies’ positions by saying that it’s “opening up the Internet to competition” or that it’s a “free market” thing that can only be good for consumers, or that it’s “unfair” to the communications companies – who, to their credit, have invested billions in the infrastructure of the Internet. What these people fail to realize is that the Internet succeeds because<\/em> it is open, just like public roads and the US Highway System.<\/p>\n