There has been a lot of discussion about net neutrality in the past several years. To many, these two words mean nothing. Net neutrality has mostly been a topic of discussion for tech pundits and entrepreneurs such as Leo Laporte, John C. Dvorak or Jason Calacanis. However, the public at large, especially faithful followers of Christ should know and care about net neutrality and what it means for future of internet communication freedom.
Net neutrality is the idea that if someone is paying for internet access, they should be able to do whatever they want with that access, and not be limited or slowed down due to the content being viewed, or the networks used to access said content. This does not mean that an individual should not be held accountable for their actions on the internet, but, that said actions should not be restricted by their internet service provider.
Now, there should be some reasonable limits. For example, if an internet provider detects that a user’s computer is spreading a virus or that they are sending out network-crippling amounts of spam, there should be some kind of security protocol in place. However, this should not apply to everyday internet activities by the average person.
It is widely known that certain providers have not stuck with this kind of policy. For example, in August of 2008, the FCC ruled that internet provider Comcast broke the law by slowing down traffic on their network for people using the file-sharing technology, Bit-Torrent. This ruling was later overturned by a federal appeals court, stating that the FCC had no rights to rule on how an independent provider manages their network traffic.
Basically put, Comcast was slowing down, or even stopping internet traffic happening through the Bit-Torrent system. Granted, Bit-Torrent, and other file-sharing technologies like it are often used for illegal sharing of copy-written movies, games and music. However, Bit-Torrent is also used to help distribute legal content, such as Ubuntu and other Linux distribution, video shows and podcasts, and even some artists release their movies or music directly through file-sharing systems. So, is it right for a provider to determine what their users should be able to do and at what speed?
Many copyright holders have ways to tell if someone has illegally downloaded and re-distributed their content, and will send providers letters of notice, which are then forwarded to the user. A similar thing is done when someone posts a clip of a movie or song on You Tube without permission. So why should a provider need to slow these communications down if the movie and music industries have a way of handling it?
Many internet providers would argue from the idea of network control. Technologies like Bit-Torrent can result in a large amount of traffic on a network. When traffic increases because of file-sharing, it can slow down the connection for everyone else, rendering the entire network slower. So, the argument from network providers is that in order to preserve network speeds for all users, they need to slow down or manage certain types of traffic.
The worry is, if a cable company offers telephone, internet and television, there may eventually be a conflict of interest. For example, Netflix, Hulu and other sites offer streaming of television shows and movies over the internet. This video streaming technology takes up a lot of bandwidth and causes a lot of traffic. It also attacks one of a cable company’s primary source of income, video service. As of right now, there is nothing preventing a cable provider from slowing down something like video streaming service, in the name of “managing network traffic”.
There have also recently been cases where there have been disputes between content providers/creators such as Fox/News Corp. and cable and satellite TV providers over content agreements and pricing. One recent case resulting in Fox and Hulu blocking a specific block of internet users, tied to a cable provider that Fox was having a dispute with. Net neutrality is a 2-way street. It says that internet providers shouldn’t slow or block traffic based upon the content, it also says that content providers and websites should not block traffic from a particular internet user or provider.
Right now, there are no laws preventing either of these things from taking place again. This means that users are still at the mercy of content providers and internet providers in terms of control over the internet.
There are also discussions in the US Congress about the government being allowed to block certain sites from the public at their discretion. The department of Homeland Security recently took down around 80 websites, under court order, but, without any warning to site owners due to copyright infringement. Again, these discussions are about illegal activity. However, when does the line go too far?
In China, any form of speech considered to be anti-government, including religious speech, can be blocked, and usually is, by the Chinese government. This is referred to as the “Great Firewall of China”, as it blocks certain sites from public view in the name of national security. This isn’t just between content providers and internet providers, but, now the government is involved as well.
US Senator Lieberman was once quoted as saying that the United States needed a similar power. As mentioned earlier, there is an act in US Congress working to make that happen.
The question, again, is where is the line drawn and who is responsible for drawing it? Should a country’s government determine what the people of said country see online? Should an internet provider be allowed to determine how much, or how often certain traffic is allowed on their network, even to the point of conflict of interest? Should content providers be allowed to block certain users from certain internet companies or certain regions over a contract dispute? What if a person puts up a website about their religion and said religion goes against a country’s “policies”, what then?
These are all very important questions, and they all have to do with network neutrality. Everyone should be concerned about this. Right now, there have been a few minor flare-ups of conflicts that have resulted in an inconvenience for some people. But, what will the future bring? Who will determine when Skype can’t be used to talk to family or friends online? Who will determine if Netflix is too big of a threat to allow users to view its content at high quality? Who will determine the future of freedom of speech online?
Please visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation at EFF.org for more information on network neutrality and internet freedom.
