The internet is changing. For most of its existence, our experience of the internet was either through email, or through accessing websites. Pretty much every user had the same experience. They might have used the internet a lot, they might have used it a little, but for all intents and purposes, the data sent and received was identical in nature. And so it made sense to treat this data identically.

 

But times change, and the internet has changed with it. Already more and more people are using the internet for services other than web browsing. More and more people are turning to live streaming of movies; soon high-definition sports online will become common. Already businesses are starting to use video-conferencing – something that is even more resource-intensive as it requires instantaneous two-way traffic.

 

These applications obviously require more bandwidth to use than simply accessing the internet. And so people will begin to use the internet differently.

 

For instance, my parents still use the internet primarily for email, and the occasional web browsing. I, on the other hand, stream TV shows though Hulu, play the online roleplaying game Everquest 2, and have participated in video conferences. All these applications demand incredibly high bandwidth. Even a split second delay significantly detracts from the online experience. On the other hand, waiting an extra few milliseconds to download an email has little difference. Other types of data transfer – backing up your computer over the weekend for instance – are of a very low priority on a second-by-second basis.

 

It is recognizing the distinction between high-priority and low-priority data that is at the core of the net neutrality debate, and why it is sheer madness to outlaw data discrimination. Because in order for the internet to evolve most efficiently, network administrators must be allowed to differentiate between different types of data, and must be able to engage in prioritization. We need to move beyond the internet being simply comprised of dumb pipes treating all data equally, to a truly smart network.

 

The internet has, since its very inception, had this discrimination built in. The Internet Protocol itself contains within it the ability for differentiated services, and the ability to tag some information packages as requiring expedited service. Net neutrality will criminalize this, and for nothing.

 

There is no rational reason to take power away from system engineers and network administrators and hand it to bureaucrats. It is radical ideology, and no more. Net Neutrality will hurt everyone with an internet connection, and bring no benefits.  This is a crucial issue that everyone should learn more about :the very future of the internet depends upon it.

In all due respect, I really don't think you understand this issue. I'm a computer scientist, and I've worked at Google. The issue is not that network providers need to be able to give some people more bandwidth than others - they could still do that even with these net neutrality laws. You just pay more for more bandwidth, and the problem of your parents getting their email while you get your games is solved. That's not the issue. In my city not very long ago, the major network provider throttled peer-to-peer traffic. If you wanted to use any kind of peer-to-peer communication, even legally, your bandwidth was orders of magnitude smaller than it should have been.
>> Matt Friday, October 30, 2009 10:28 PM

If a network provider can do that, what's stopping them from saying, "All traffic to and from microsoft.com is getting its bandwidth cut in half"? That's what internet content providers are worried about, because it has happened. That's the real issue. And solving it would not stifle innovation, it would just ensure that network providers can't destroy a content provider on a whim. Here's a good discussion about some of the issues on Google's public policy blog: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/10/finding-common-ground-on-open-internet.html. It has the viewpoints of both Google and Verizon, who are on opposite sides of the debate.
>> Matt Friday, October 30, 2009 10:32 PM

Relating the internet to a set of pipes is rather silly. This issue is not about ensuring what data is important vs. what is not. This is an issue about ensuring the unhindered free flow of data to the consumer through the connection they are paying for. You would be outraged if a phone company greatly diminished the quality of your call to a competing company’s service - unless a higher priced package was purchased. The telecommunication companies do not own the internet; they maintain the causeways and ports, they allow us, the consumer, access to the sea. They cannot be allowed to hinder the flow of goods. This would be a direct assault on the principals and values of the free market. Something I thought you would abhor.
>> Andrew Monday, November 2, 2009 1:12 AM

Andrew--if they decide to jack up the price, that's fine; you should leave and go to another company. You should NOT, however, push for government regulation. Following your analogy, as a port owner, there's nothing wrong with charging more for bigger boats. The idea that you have to pay for more packets makes perfect sense economically. If comcast decides to restrict Microsoft information, who cares? Don't buy from Comcast. In fact, there would be a lot of religious folks (like me) that would love it if Comcast would offer a "no-porn" plan--which (if I understand) would be destroyed by net neutrality. Also, a government-enforced free market, isn't a free market. Thoughts?
>> Jeffrey Hosten Monday, November 2, 2009 10:37 AM

If Microsoft has a monopoly, who cares? Don't buy from Microsoft. As much as we love the free market, it does fail sometimes. Pretending that it doesn't is simply ignorant. There are times when regulating companies is beneficial to consumers. If there is only one decent internet provider in your neighborhood, and they throttle traffic to the website you want to go to, where is your recourse? You have none. And the problem with having a porn filter on a network provider level is that it's impossible, unless you get rid of all encryption and any semblance of security on the internet. How are you supposed to know if this stream of 0's and 1's is a picture, and if that picture is porn? You can't.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 11:08 AM

You're bringing up a distraction--regulation can be good sometimes, but have anti-trust to fix that--that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to limit executive compensation at JPMorgan. Your point is a non sequitur. Just because some regulation is good doesn't mean that this regulation is. If you have an internet service provider that is only giving you some sites, and it's a monopoly, then sue under anti-trust, not because it's 'cheating you.' Or set up your own company. Now, at the end of the day, that's not the reason why many people like net neutrality--they like it because it's moving towards making the internet a universal human right, socializing the internet.
>> Jeff Hosten Monday, November 2, 2009 3:14 PM

Get Obama out of office........
>> Joyce Monday, November 2, 2009 3:51 PM

What does banker compensation have to do with net neutrality?
>> Andrew Tuesday, November 3, 2009 6:42 PM