Salon has published an article with more depth on the technical and policy arguments behind the net neutrality debate (worth the few seconds to watch an E Trade ad).
Among all of the he-said/she-said coverage of each side’s arguments, what I see is the true heart of the issue is starting to emerge: who can control the physical infrastructure of the Internet?
At firms like AT&T and Verizon, both of which have roots in the monopolistic old AT&T, there’s now an effort afoot to reengineer parts of the Internet by introducing more intelligence to manage and control data.
(emphasis added)
In this case, the question might be more accurately phrased around controlling the speed of a particular web site/application, but this central issue remains. Personally, I would prefer that the control remain in the hands of those who use the Internet, as opposed to being “in the network” or the hands of those who own the wires.
I like control being in the hands of the user as well. It is for that very reason that I oppose net neutrality legislation. Instead of letting the consumers settle this difficult issue with their money and business, it’s asking the government to unnecessarily get involved. I just don’t like it.
Perhaps it would help to separate out the negative (or “freedom from” control) and positive liberties (or “freedom to” pursue one’s own agenda) at work here.
If I understand the argument correctly, individuals and companies should have the (negative) liberty from any government control over business decisions on how to structure the network, or that (under positive liberty) individuals and companies should have the freedom to structure the network as they see fit.
I see another, I would argue stronger, negative liberty at stake (freedom from control) which is provider and user freedom from control by the oligopoly of service providers. The reason why I think this argument is stronger is because I believe that a non-neutral network would impose regulations that would impact far more people (adjudicating preferential treatment, raising prices for content), than would an order to providers to keep things the way they are.
Or, on the positive side, that the government should protect the freedom of Internet users to utilize the network on an even playing field. I think the government has a job to protect this marketplace, just as it uses the 1st Amendment to protect the “marketplace of ideas.”
I’m still not sure if any of that has made things more clear.
No ISP has done this type of thing, so I’d advise a ‘wait and see’ approach before letting Uncle Sam in the door. Do we want him doing with our Internet what he did with the Medicare prescription drug plan? There’s gotta be a way to make the Internet work as effectively as possible without getting Congress involved.
Yea, I really think that asking Congress to regulate is akin to asking Pandora to open her box…consumers are protected by the market and by current FCC code.