Those that believe this is a modern issue of global communication networks are greatly mistaken. Impartialness has been a long standing foundation for communications for centuries. As far back as the telegram in 1860, an act was passed to facilitate communication between the Atlantic and Pacific states by electric telegraph. It stated that “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” (Pacific Telegraph Act of 1860). This vital paradigm was carried forward with the development of the Internet, and around 1983, the end-to-end theory was central for defining protocols that would be responsible for the traffic (Halfhill 9). The Internet was to be “dumb,” not knowing the difference from one packet to another. It is appalling to see such an important, long-lasting foundation for communication be under so much pressure to be undermined.

Sometimes it can be confusing trying to understand what kind of network the cable and telephone companies envision. You completely see through their lies when you say they “have in mind creating another type of customer not a class of service.” On their network, not only would end users, like you and me, and content providers, such as Google and Yahoo, pay for the connection to the Web, but would also pay for the content being delivered. This is akin to a tax on packets containing certain data. Due to the desirability to have low latency, high bandwidth for VoIP, online games, and music and video services, the communication companies make it seem they are struggling to meet the demands. They also complain that bandwidth is being consumed not by legitimate companies, but by file sharing. Wired magazine confirmed this in their January 2005 issue: “Analysts at CacheLogic, an Internet-traffic analysis firm in Cambridge, England, report that BitTorrent traffic accounts for more than one-third of all data sent across the Internet” (Thompson 52). They’re required to facilitate illegitimate traffic that could instead be used for their quality voice and video services. While this is a legitimate concern, they feel the only way to address the problem is with some kind of “intelligent” system. Well, there is another word for “intelligent system,” and that is Quality of Service, the antonym of neutrality. “Quality of Service (QoS), a networking concept describing the technological methods for guaranteeing that some network traffic is serviced better than traffic, is the key. Customers will soon pay for premium service options to see specific kinds of traffic…” (Fisher) Yes, Quality of Service would help demands by allowing sensitive traffic priority, but as we can see, communication companies won’t stop there. Only people who pay top dollars will be benefited in this new, tiered Internet.

The existence of a tiered Internet would have other interesting outcomes, such as smothering innovation. You clearly understand the issue at hand when you say, “Forcing innovators to change the network in order to implement an application means an end to innovation.” Google would be nothing more than a fancy idea today if not for the neutral Internet. Once a small startup, as many Internet companies begin, Google relied on the freedom to deliver its service relative to its demand. On the ideal Internet that phone and cable companies want, Google would not only have to face the competition within search, but also that of connectivity. Big corporation have the cash to buy the fast-lanes, or the “HOV lanes” as you stated, leaving small companies unable to keep up with the costs. At the 16th Annual Entertainment, Media and Telecommunications Conference in Phoenix, Senior VP and CFO, Rick Lindner dismissed this concern saying, “It’s no different today from what you see going on today in other parts of the industry. As an example, content providers are entering into agreements everyday with wireless providers to provide content…” True, but the fact still remains that everyone pays an equal share for how much they consume anyways. In addition, “providing” content is considerably different than enhancing availability of content, which really what the goal is.

After an innovative company or service establishes itself, neutrality can then ensure a fair and competitive market. In recent years, the economic world has relied upon the Internet to provide a foundation for this market. The loss of neutrality would mean the loss of capitalism. How could a company survive if its competitor’s data was overriding its own? The packets of information would triumph the network, beating all opposition in its path. A business’s ability to communicate is just as important at their ability to use the roadways for delivery. Imagine company trucks being stopped to let others go through. Products not being shipped on time or in a competitive manner would mean sudden death. Market forces are finely balanced. If the network shaped or distorted traffic, the balance would be thrown off, causing sever negative effects on economic growth. Just recently in Dubai, telecommunication regulators cut all access to a popular Internet calling service, Skype. The result: “…prices of international calling skyrocketed” (Krane). It is the customer’s right to decide what services on the Internet is worth their time, the basis of a fair market. As you said, “Network neutrality allows end users to choose winners and losers…”

As anyone can see, these facets of net neutrality extend far beyond economics, it holds within the idea of freedom and democracy. Citizens of China and North Korea have slowly felt the pressure by their government to regulate Internet access. The Web experienced in these countries is far different than that of the Western world. We enjoy the freedom to communicate knowing that nothing has been tampered with along they way, that everyone on the Internet has a fair change to hear and be heard. This form of communication embodies democracy and ensures our First Amendment rights.

Works Cited

Fisher, Ken. “AT&T Sees Benefits to Tiered Internet Service.” Arstechnica. 12 Dec 2006
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060112-5965.html

Halfhill, Tom. “The Myth of Net Neutrality.” Maximum PC July 2006: 9.

Krane, Jim. “Users bemoan loss of Net phones in UAE.” The Associated Press 18 Oct 2006.

Thompson, Clive. “The BitTorrent Effect.” Wired Jan 2005: 52.

I believe in realization of net neutrality, but it may be little unrealistic to get it sooner, unless the ISPs follow bandwidth criteria than blocking applications totally as mentioned in wiki:

“For example, if file sharing programs use up too much bandwidth, this argument suggests, a network operator should be allowed to slow it down. The typical answer to this argument goes as follows. There may be more and less distortionary ways of managing bandwidth — and blocking or disfavoring certain applications is more distortionary. A more neutral way of managing bandwidth is to manage bandwidth at the consumer side – i.e., to limit the users to, say, x gigabytes per month after which their transfer rate is reduced, instead of banning peer-to-peer applications (systems of this type have been employed in other countries, e.g. Australia).”

Ted is right on topic… For further thoughts:

http://geekonomics.blogspot.com/2006/04/net-neutraility-mumbo-jumbo.html

http://blogs.thedeal.com/2006/03/broadbandcoss.html