Net Neutrality: All Blog are Created Equal

            Net neutrality is a concept with a definition that is frequently debated as much as the issue itself is debated.  Many articles on the internet not entirely clear as to exactly what it is, so I decided to get to the bottom of the matter, as I myself had little to no understanding of what "net neutrality" meant.  An article on Cybertelecom says it is a term that has been accused of being nothing but a meaningless slogan used by its proponents, with no true definition—so while that's not too encouraging, it also inspired me to find out more.

            My first exposure to the term was when I heard that a website called 4chan (and I don’t suggest visiting it without caution—see Wikipedia) was blocked from Verizon Wireless.  Since 4chan is a rather infamous website, one is quick to understand why if any website were to be censored, it would have to be 4chan, which contains both ordinary discussion of Japanese animation and pornographic images.  However, according to the Washington Post, Verizon’s reason for blocking 4chan was for their own safety—as some parts of the website “appeared to be flooding the network with traffic from a denial of service attack.”  A distributed denial of service or DDoS attack basically involves a hacker causing a system to shut down by sending it too many messages.  However, in the same article, Christopher Poole, the creator 4chan, denies that the attack was significant enough for the block to be warranted.  A similar thing happened with AT&T in July 2009, and Poole’s comment on the matter was that he was pleased that the issue had at least “prompted renewed interest and debate over net neutrality and Internet censorship - two very important issues that don't get nearly enough attention.” 

            All the stories on the internet about these instances with 4chan have given me a fuzzy definition of “net neutrality,” since they aren’t clearly related to most of the information I’ve found about net neutrality.  The 4chan example uses the definition that is related to censorship, which I take to mean something along the lines of “all websites should be treated equally by service providers, regardless of their content.”  On the surface, I think that makes sense as the meaning of “net neutrality.”

            However, this is only one part of a many faceted term.   Net neutrality can also be related to the older concept of “common carriage,” which may make the issue easier to understand in a more traditional sense.  The principle of common carriage states that carries of goods should not discriminate with regards to the goods they carry, and that they should offer the same services to all.

            Thus, applied to net neutrality, this means all sites should receive the same service, regardless of how much they pay, according to Cybertelecom's article.  There is much talk of a “two-tiered” internet where certain providers pay more money and as a result receive better service.  An internet with net neutrality allows sites like Google and even personal blog sites to thrive and be very successful regardless of how they were begun, and regardless of whether any “owners” of the internet choose to promote them.  Save the Internet is a popular website arguing for net neutrality.   Any higher tier of service, according to those in favor of net neutrality, should be available to everyone.

Google itself, though sometimes cited as supporting net neutrality or “common carriage,” has also been accused of violating it.  Cybertelecom mentions that there is indeed a debate over whether Google is discriminating if they refuse to advertise a website.  In the court case of Langdon v. Google, Inc, “the court ruled that Google is not a government actor and is not obligated to carry ads it does not want to carry.”  Another reason the court did not consider Google to be at fault was that one can find other means to advertise than Google.

In fact, Cybertelecom says opponents of net neutrality have said that the problem doesn’t truly exist, and that “net neutrality legislation would prohibit something that hasn't happened.”  To an extent, that might appear to be true.  For instance, I have never personally felt censored on the internet, and it is true that America does not tend to censor websites like China does.  But as internet use becomes more widespread and continues to dominate our lives, opportunities for censorship are arising as companies try to think of ways to make more money.  And certainly there have been instances that might be related to non-neutrality, even if they haven’t personally affected me.   So the argument that non-neutrality hasn’t even happened, according to the Cybertelecom article, “is increasingly shallow.”

A great example of why the argument is shallow is the proposal made by the chief research and technology officer of Microsoft, Craig Mundie.  He has proposed that the internet should be divided into three tiers that are regulated to the extent that users are actually required to have a license to use the internet, which would be taken away if they were to do something illegal.  Mundie does not actually believe we are entitled to anonymity on the internet.  To me and apparently the people commenting on the article, this is nothing but a thinly veiled excuse for companies to make more money.  In her Curious Capitalist blog, Barbara Kiviat notes that the internet “was never intended to be a worldwide system of mass communication” but now that it is, new laws are required to regulate it. 

President Obama has stated that he is in favor of net neutrality, so while the problem exists, perhaps it will not be escalating soon, luckily for the people over at Save the Internet.  He shares the idea that stifling the growth of websites is not beneficial, since anyone with a good idea should have the ability to start a popular website, regardless of how much money he or she has.  Requiring unequal fees for internet use would not only go against this but make censorship easier for companies.  But while the President may see the importance of an “open” internet, there is still much urgency in the very name of Save the Internet’s website.  Barbara Kiviat, for instance, is of the opinion that the face of the internet will be changing, moving in a non-neutral directions, and companies are certainly itching to make this a reality.

I am glad I now better understand the ambiguous term that is “net neutrality” and do agree with Christopher Poole that it is an issue that is often ignored but should probably be brought to light.  It is important for any avid user of the internet to research this debate.  We should all understand that we are carelessly clicking away, not acknowledging the benefits of net neutrality, but that there is a possibility companies could take hold of the internet and change things for us.