An End to Network Neutrality

The U.S. Justice Department it appears is in support of allowing internet service providers to charge for priority service. On the surface this doesn't sound like a big deal, but once you break it down and see what is really happening you will see that the corporations are stealing one of the most valuable weapons of the people.

First a little background. Network neutrality refers to the ability to transport information freely over a network. Currently the network of fiber optic cables that connect your house to the rest of the world is owned by several large communication corporations. These companies have access agreements that allow the traffic you send to leave your service providers network and travel to its destination which may be on a competitors network. Whether you use your broadband connection to play games, check e-mail,or download music, you pay the same price for that connection no matter what. No matter where you live in the United States you are free to visit virtually any website you so desire. You can use your DSL connection provided by your phone company to browse rates on a competitor's website. China is an example of non-network neutrality. The government there controls what content is available to its citizens and if companies like Google or Microsoft want to do business there, they must follow the government's censorship regulations. In the United States the gatekeepers will be the internet service providers (AT&T, Verizon, etc). The concept of network neutrality goes back to the time of the telegraph when the government forced telegraph companies to prioritize government messages.

Once internet service providers gain control they will have the ability to determine what services are not cost effective to allow on their network (Vonage is a good example since they directly compete with the phone company). The ISP would charge a fee to Vonage (which would ultimately be passed on to you) that would allow Vonage traffic to pass the gate and get to you. Also the ISP would have the ability to block websites (a competitor's website for example) or any other content the ISP owners feel is offensive, not in their best interest, or that they are paid to block. There are several good examples of ISPs restricting access to websites that did not share their opinion. You can find them in the section labeled, Claims of data discrimination practices on this Wikipedia article.

Supporters of the proposed change (the ISPs) say the change is necessary due to bandwidth becoming more and more scarce. This is a problem with more and more people downloading music, playing online games, and using voice over ip phone service. The ISPs believe that they have a right to sale priority access to their networks. Personally I feel that they do not have this right because much of the infrastructure was governmentally subsidized.

Bills to establish network neutrality have been proposed at several different times in recent history by the House and the Senate, but they have fallen short, usually being passed without their network neutrality provision or dying due to lack of support.

I feel that the internet should be left as is and should continue to be a free flow of information and ideas. Although bandwidth scarcity is a problem, we must find other ways to combat it. With all the government taxes and fees we pay on our communications bills surely upgrades can be justified. If a regulation killing network neutrality is passed, the internet will cease to be the great equalizer for the people that I feel it currently is. Yielding to big business by placing unneeded controls on the internet will continue to change the American political system and take away more power from the people.

Recent BBC Article on Network Neutrality