As many ideas go, Net Neutrality looks absolutely wonderful on paper. The name is great as well. Who would ever speak out about something called Net Neutrality, since that is something everyone wants. We all want to make sure we get unfiltered content that is not catering specifically to any one place. However, that is not how the Internet works. In fact, in its purest form, Net Neutrality is not neutral at all, nor does it uphold freedom.

Define Net Neutrality

First off, what is Net Neutrality or more to the point how do the bureaucrats in Washington define Net Neutrality?

Essentially the bill would stop ISPs from limiting (“throttling” as MediaCom so eloquently put it) or stopping traffic from Internet outlets (web sites, newgroups, p2p networks, etc.). However, it also defines Net Neutrality as not charging extra fees for increased bandwidth usage (sec 28 b. “If a broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, it must prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type without imposing a surcharge”). In addition, the bill has a provision against an ISP from preventing a user to attach or use a device on the network as long as it doesn’t “physically” degrade the network (spam mavens around the world rejoice!).

So essentially the bill states: no throttling of the network, no charging extra for enhanced services, and you can use the network as long as you don’t physically break it.

Network Throttling

When a network throttles data, it is basically slowing down the traffic of that data. For example, Mediacom throttled p2p traffic. If their network was running at 5 Mbps, throttling p2p traffic would be to make it run at say 50 kbps. You still get it, but it has to travel in the slow lane of the Information Superhighway. This is a practice that I am personally against because in the end how does an ISP choose what to throttle and what not to throttle? If I ran a video site would my traffic, be throttled and thusly make my own subscribers mad? However, there is an easy way of handling this and it is called competition. If one ISP throttles traffic then this gives the opportunity for their competition to present unthrottled traffic to their users. Market forces then handle the rest.

Net Censorship and Multi-Tier Networks

Who has been censored by United States ISPs? Who? Anyone? I searched long and hard to find if there was a single instance of an ISP censoring anything that was not SPAM. I couldn’t find any. I went to the Save the Internet web site, which displayed a dazzling array of people who believe ISPs will censor them if Congress doesn’t act.

I want an ISP to censor me. Call me crazy, but if I found an ISP had censored me I would sue them on the basis of First Amendment rights and collect my money. I could retire while young and perhaps I can even buy a llama farm of my very own. Cause, well, llamas are cool.

Multi-tiered networks have been with ISPs since the inception of broadband; users pay for these services. We pay extra to get a 3 Mbps line or a 500 kbps stream. Now we slide this same principle to the other side. If I ran a video site and I wanted the best data stream or my media I would look to a good Web Host provider. I find one who can give me the bandwidth and data transfer I need to make my video site the best I could. It’s an operating expense and it should be paid for. If I wanted a brick and mortar store to have better foot traffic, I would pay extra rent money to get a store in the mall or close to a freeway instead out in the middle of nowhere. I wouldn’t say, “damn you realty moguls for charging me an extra four hundred bucks for a better location.” I would instead make sure my product was worth it and pay the extra money if it was.

This applies to non-profit organizations as well. If a non-profit organization provides a better service, then they should find a means of presenting that service in the best way possible. If they have streaming media, it’s a simple case of finding a host for that media such as YouTube or make a contract with a Web Host where they can say, “we host such and such organization.” It is not a difficult process, but it requires some work. The Net Neutrality bill will not remedy this.

Instead, it gives ISPs no incentives for giving better services. “Big, evil corporate America” is run by one thing, the bottom line. Increasing infrastructure costs a lot of money. If you charge everyone the same price, either you have to raise prices across the board for everyone or you simply never increase your service. That means non-profit organizations and small business who do not need high amounts of bandwidth WILL BE CHARGED the SAME PRICE as the bigger companies who do. Net Neutrality does not give small companies access it bars them from the access and in fact might even keep them from getting off the ground in the first place.

In a tiered solution, an ISP charges the companies who require more bandwidth more because they place a higher burden on the network. It is not about limiting access it’s about paying a fair share of the network burden.

Comcast did not throttle p2p networks because they wanted to censor them, they did it because p2p sites put an extreme burden on the network. When that happens you have two options. You can charge those who burden the network (in this case, it would be users who use p2p, which would be us, the consumer) or you can lower the bandwidth of the cause. If they charged the consumer more they would have to charge all consumers placing the burden across the board on all consumers. Instead they throttled the source. A third option would be to make a separate tier for users who use p2p. This would be a hybrid of the previous two. For instance, Comcast could say if you want unthrottled p2p download s than purchase the $100 a month plan. You can still download from p2p on the normal plan, but it will be at slower speeds than say accessing a Web site. If the Net Neutrality bill passes this option (which is quite fair) would not be an option.

This bill is not about fairness, it is not about neutrality, it is about control. It places unnecessary limits on ISP and removes the option for fairness when it comes to network sharing. If government really wanted to help the Internet, they would provide a means for increased competition and give ISPs a reason to increase their infrastructure. This bill does the exact opposite. In the end, it will hurt all of those who it wanted to help.