The debate called 'Net Neutrality' - An Introduction

The Internet first came into existence in 1969 for the purposes of data sharing and transfer between computers based at different locations. What started out a network created for specific Defense data transmission and sharing has today become the backbone of communications world over. From being used for a really small Defense network in the United States of America, the Internet today connects billion+ computers across more than 200 countries in the world. Such is the criticality of Internet to governments and corporates alike, that a world without the fast communication that Internet provides is impossible to imagine.

One of the most critical debates surrounding the Internet in the last decade is referred to as “Net Neutrality”. The term net neutrality, coined by Columbia Law School Professor Tim Wu in 2003 [1]. While there is no particular definition universally accepted, net neutrality broadly states that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat the content sent across internet as equal, without providing any discriminatory or preferential treatment to certain types of content over others or charge discretionary fees to companies to ensure their content reaches the user [2]. It is a network principle which goes back to original Internet design which treats every data packet (content on the Internet) as equal and no data packet is given priority over others [3]. For example, an ISP like Comcast, Sky, Singtel, Airtel etc. should not provide special faster speed to Youtube.com and a different speed to Dailymotion.com.

As Professor Wu predicted in 2003, regulators will indeed spend more time resolving conflicts between commercial interests of ISPs and interests of the public. In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the United States released draft rules to help “preserve an open Internet” in the United States [4]. In this draft proposal, FCC clearly stated that there is no debate about the fact that openness of internet and the protocol transparency have been vital to its success world over and maintaining this open Internet will be critical for future development. It agrees that there is a need to have regulations in place to ensure open Internet or net neutrality because ISPs have motivation as well as technology to discriminate for or against certain Internet content which can not only affect companies using internet to send data, but also users using internet to receive the data. Some of the key aspects put down by FCC in the draft rules prohibits the ISPs from (1) Discriminating for or against lawful content, applications or services used by subscribers, (2) Giving priority to some internet traffic over others or charge a fee to give priority and (3) Levying extra congestion charges.

For years ISPs have been lobbying with governments across the world to end net neutrality and as such it has been a highly debated across the globe. The debate is often two-sided, where ISPs debate against net neutrality and companies and end users debate for it.

The proponents or supporters of net neutrality argue that discrimination of content on the Internet will provide higher leverage to companies with more money power to buy priority access, thus, creating a bottleneck for innovators, start-ups and small and medium business enterprises who may not be able to compete with big wigs. For example, Youtube or Amazon will have an upper hand compared to smaller players like Dailymotion or Freepeople. This is the supply side argument. On the end-users side or the demand side, the argument stresses that the money spent by companies to gain priority in data dissemination may ultimately pass on the higher expense to the users who will ultimately bear the monetary brunt. Further, the ISPs themselves might charge the end-users to get their requested content on priority. For example, Netflix may pass on the higher expense by increasing subscription fees or ISPs may come up with a different data pricing for video streaming services. Some proponents also argue that net neutrality is central to as an issue of freedom of speech [5], making it much more socio-political issue, rather than it being just an economic one.

The opposers of net neutrality have quite often been the ISPs who argue that they can provide quality service if they are allowed to bigger hand in the way they manage their networks. They further argue that the investment required in building better and updated infrastructure is expensive. Thus, if they are not allowed to charge differential fees to those who provide majority of content (example providers like Google, Facebook, etc.) then such companies are not contributing fairly for the usage and access they have. Simply put, it means that those who depend more on Internet for their business and make higher profits out of it must pay more [6]. However, it will be misinformation if we consider only the ISPs to be opposing net neutrality. Some academics have provided evidence which supports opposing view.

Internet is the backbone of communication. Advent of social media, electronic transformation of libraries leading to higher knowledge dissemination, faster information and quick news transmission has resulted in providing benefits to the society that cannot be measured in mere numbers. From simple advantages of e-learning to higher advantages such as citizen journalism, internet has contributed vastly to evolution of knowledge and information literacy of the society. As technology advances, newer challenges to Internet as medium of communication will emerge. Net neutrality debate is one such issue facing the society at large.

In this paper, we discuss net neutrality and open internet from economic, political and social angle of the net neutrality debate to

• Better understand the two sides of the debate and try and reach a conclusion on which side of the debate is better placed in the current situation.
• Explore net neutrality beyond its framework to see whether net neutrality in its current situation is reality or an illusion.
• Examine whether net neutrality is essential for a information and media literate society.

For purposes of a little lighthearted entertainment, here's a simplified and funny interpretation of what net neutrality really means for you and me... by none other than the absolutely boisterous, John Oliver! [7] The video stands for net neutrality, and the opinions may be lopsided and dramatized for an entertaining television viewing. The authors of the blog do not necessarily support or oppose his views. 

References:

[1] Wu, T. (2003). Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. Journal On Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 2(1), 141-175.
[2] Ammori, M. (2014). The Case for Net Neutrality. Foreign Affairs, 93(4), 62-73. 
[3] Guo, H., Cheng, H., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2013). Broadband Network Management and the Net Neutrality Debate. Production & Operations Management, 22(5), 1287-1298.
[4] Federal Communications Commission. (2010). In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices. Report and Order, 25.
[5] Cherry, Barbara A. (2006). Misusing network neutrality to eliminate common carriage threatens free speech and the postal system. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 483, 482-511.
[6] Ganley, P., & Allgrove, B. (2006). Net neutrality: A user's guide. Computer Law & Security Review, 22(6), 454-463.
[7] HBO. (2014). Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Net Neutrality (HBO). Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU