Hey - Neutrality is Working Just Fine for Switzerland

After doing some research on my own, and familiarizing myself with the concept and how it affects those involved in the debate, I have emerged as a supporter of network neutrality. Not having a previous stance on the issue, one might question how I reached a conclusion so quickly? The answer seems natural to me, something so simple and so complicated at the same time, much like filesharing, yet something that one person or a group of people does not seem likely to stop or control. So what is the debate behind this still little-known issue?

While almost every article I read on the subject even had its own problems defining network neutrality, my understanding is that certain website owners wish to charge money based on traffic flow, instead of having a free and open internet (the current state of affairs). For example, since Amazon.com has so many more visitors each day than Tony’s Com 125 Blog, should Amazon be able to charge more for the service it provides to so many more users? The best answer to this I could find lies in the article “Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious,” by K.C. Jones. Jones answers the question by comparing the network to an electric grid, which similarly provides a service to multiple people. Built on implicit theory, Jones states that the “grid does not care if you plug in a toaster, an iron, or a computer. Consequently, it has survived and supported giant waves of innovation in the appliance market.” Upon reading this, the debate became so much clearer to me, as did the answer I was looking for. Of course, there are two sides to every debate, and it would be unfair not to examine the opposite position.

Contrarily, there are telecommunications executives that have in mind a fast-lane idea for higher-paying content providers. In other words, these executives argue that they should be allowed to prioritize websites carrying information that is serving a higher purpose (Jones). Furthermore, those who really feel they are being cut-short by network neutrality are those in the cozy seats at corporations, looking as always to make a buck. This is not to criticize top executives, but is merely to point out that those being “affected” by network neutrality are not sleeping on the streets tonight. Whether or not they have a good point about traffic flow and purpose-serving information, they still possess comfortable jobs and comfortable lifestyles. Those who would be affected by the disappearance of network neutrality and the beginning of higher-paying content providers? The common man or woman, of course. As is with most things (taxes!), the common man or woman who makes a decent salary will always be much more affected by such issues than the CEO of a giant corporation. The source of my debate would stem right here, and then I would work outward to the fine details. The main issue, however, is who is actually losing money because of network neutrality? No one. No individual or company is actually losing money, they are simply playing on an even field with the rest of the internet, missing what they feel is the opportunity to gain revenue.

While this debate is much more intense than I can get into in this blog, I am a general supporter of maintaining network neutrality, for its simple lack of discrimination for who you are as a user. The basic concept of packet switching, with no regard for what type of information the packets are carrying, was the foundation for which the internet was built. Moreover, it has allowed the internet to grow into the social infrastructure it has become today, and to be thinking about reshaping it now seems foolish to me.


Resources:

Jones, K.C. (2007, March 16). Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious. Information Week. Retrieved April 12, 2007 from, http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198001557