Net Neutrality Part 1: Introduction
Okay, so everyone has been talking about net neutrality–particularly with the upcoming election and Comcast’s recent antics–as if the Internet is about to suffer some impending doom. But it seems like most people don’t really have a clue what net neutrality is, and everyone just takes the word of a few activists who insist that it’s necessary to prevent telecommunications companies from exerting their will on the entire Internet.
Now, I don’t disagree that a “tiered Internet” is a bad thing, but I think that calling for legislation necessitating complete net neutrality is an overreaction, and is very likely in fact a bad idea. There are reasons why some degree of non-neutrality might be necessary or even preferable, but these points seem to get lost in a big “you vs. The Man” war in which, if you don’t stop The Man, he might severely restrict your Internet!
But maybe we should educate ourselves before we engage in this debate. The concept of net neutrality seems straightforward–essentially, that all Internet communications should be “treated equally”–but gets complicated once we start discussing what exactly that entails. So I figured that I would devote a few posts in here to explaining what net neutrality is, why people think it’s good, and why other people think it’s bad. It’s not a simple debate, but it’s irresponsible to support net neutrality as a savior of the Internet without realizing how harmful it might actually be.
“As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non-discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive.” -Vint Cerf, co-creator of the TCP/IP protocol underlying the Internet, and net neutrality proponent
“I am totally opposed to mandating that nothing interesting can happen inside the net.” -Bob Kahn, co-creator of TCP/IP and net neutrality opponent
(Hey, by the way, you definitely ought to leave comments on my blog all the time!)