Can The Internet Be Neutral?

One of the hot-button issues currently being decided at the FCC is the idea of “net neutrality.” Proponents of net neutrality, mainly end users and content distributors (such as Netflix) want legislation or regulations that prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from performing analysis on the types of traffic traversing their networks, and assigning different priorities to different types of traffic. Opponents of net neutrality, namely ISPs, would like to not only do just that, but also charge subscribers more money to access different types of traffic at usable speeds. For example, without net neutrality, an Internet subscriber could pay $50 per month for reliable access to email, social networking, and search sites. In order to access news sites, or use streaming services like Netflix or Hulu, they might be required to pay more per month to access these higher-bandwidth services.

Should this be permitted? Should a user’s ISP be able to arbitrarily decide which websites and services are accessible at certain price points, and extort users who wish to do more online? Should the Internet, a resource increasingly being referred to as a necessary utility for modern society, have fast lanes and slow lanes determined by big business? Should laissez-faire economics rule the world’s foremost communication medium?

The answer, this writer believes, is unequivocally no. Let me tell you why. The Internet was, in its infancy, a government research project. In a few short decades, it has evolved into a massive information machine. It has become a social and professional necessity. To borrow a term from Blown to Bits, “it’s all just bits” as far as the Internet and its infrastructure is concerned. Routers, switches, copper, and fiber don’t care what each bit might turn out to be. They care about getting the bits where they need to go as fast as possible. Without net neutrality, ISPs can, and will, get in the way. Your email might work just fine, but don’t you even think about trying Netflix without buying the “streaming media” package from your ISP. That is a glimpse of the future without net neutrality. All data is created equal. Allowing that to be untrue gives ISPs a terrifying amount of power, and sets a terrible precedent.

So, why should the FCC protect the open Internet? It just makes sense. Payment for the use of a service should always mean equal, unabridged use. Metering, like paying for a certain amount of wireless data on a mobile phone plan, is similar yet acceptable. Imagine if the electric utility company implemented a “comfort surcharge” during the summer in order to use air conditioning. You’re already paying for the electricity; why should you have to pay more to utilize its full potential? The Internet is the Internet. There shouldn’t be a different Internet for those who can afford premium packages. Data discrimination creates that divide. You paid for it? Use it. All of it.

- The Admiral