The Issue – Net Neutrality is the term used to describe the issue of whether an Internet Service Provider (ISP) should have the ability to shape or control the data usage on its own network. The internet currently acts as a neutral medium, where people can access or distribute any service through the internet, without having to worry about traffic from other services taking higher priority over its own (with few exceptions). However, major ISPs want to change the way this works. They want the legal ability to implementing techniques such as bandwidth throttling, or even outright blocking certain types of content. For example, they could cut down the max transfer rates on email in an attempt to clear up bandwidth for other types of traffic such as video, or completely block any torrent traffic tying up its network.
The Argument Against Net Neutrality – Internet and Cable Providers argue that the quality of their service will degrade without the ability to shape internet traffic. They currently lack an efficient technique that allows them to accommodate the resent surge in data heavy services such as Hulu or Netflix. ISPs feel they have a right to do whatever is beneficial to their own company. The free market should allow them to act as they want and allow users to vote with their dollars, by either choosing to stick with a provider that interferes with traffic, or move to a competitor that does not.
The Argument for Net Neutrality – Supporters of net neutrality believe that internet service should be treated as a utility, and a provider should not care about the traffic going through its wires. An ISP should not be able to prioritize its traffic, because doing so can lead to the elimination of competition between those content providers who can pay for higher prioritization and those who can't. For example, a small start-up wanting to stream television over the internet would not be able to compete on a Comcast network who is blocking any television streaming service other than its own.
Current Rules – On December 21, 2010 the FCC approved new Net Neutrality rules defining what an ISP can and cannot do. The rules state that all there will be no shaping of legal content over wired infrastructure. The rules are slightly less strict on wireless networks however, as wireless carriers such as Verizon or AT&T are able to transparently interfere with certain content or services as they see fit. This means that as long as wireless carriers are open about what traffic they chose to discriminate against, they can do it.
My Opinion – I look at it this way, would you rather have competition between internet services providers, or individual content providers? Large ISPs have such a strangle hold on the industry that a consumer will usually only have one or two decent options in a give area. This undermines a huge chunk of the anti-Net Neutrality argument. An ISP that can manage it's network by throttling certain types of traffic can just sit there without improving infrastructure when it's users don't really have another option to turn too.
Adding regulations will keep a high quality of competition between content providers. Instead of large established companies being able to pay for high priority traffic, they will have to compete with any small start-up on a level playing field, leaving innovation the only choice to improve and beat out the competition. And when ISPs aren't able to shape traffic to their needs, the only other choice they have is to improve their current infrastructure.
Verizon is currently fighting the rules set by the FFC, however I feel that strict Net Neutrality regulations will prompt innovation and improvements in both the quality of the service and content providers, leading to a win for the average consumer on every front.
No comments:
Post a Comment