Sorry about the delay in replying to recent comments, it’s been a busy few days (and I never honestly expected to have any readers…guess that’s the magic of trackback). While networks and economics aren’t really my specialty, I appreciate the chance to have a good discussion about such an important issue. I can see that there’s a need to clarify some of my thinking, so here are the main reasons why I think network neutrality is something to value (from least to most important).

• Network economics: I’m still searching for where I heard recently that, while broadband availability is on the rise, most only have a choice of one service (more research on this fact is desperately needed for an informed debate). If this is in fact the case, it strengthens the argument that broadband ISPs are acting as a monopoly or oligopoly, or that there isn’t really enough competition to create market effects. This isn’t the most important point, however, because I would argue that decisions can and should be made for reasons other than just what the market may or may not provide.
• The commons and progress: Historical examples offer one of these reasons, for they show many instances of where the government has actively taken part in creating a commons on which both individuals and commerce can benefit.
  • The early postal system was a large motivating factor in the creation of national roadways, created physical locations where people would meet and discuss issues of the day, and was a source of pride for early Americans (I realize this is a controversial claim, so I’ll provide a cite: Spreading the News, Richard R. John).
  • Early copyright required individuals to register their works and deposit them with the Library of Congress, which quickly created one of the nation’s greatest libraries at low cost to creators.
  • The interstate system is open so that WalMart, Mom n’ Pop’s freight, and the public as a whole can benefit from the system.
  • Finally, in the early telephone monopoly, regulation drove network development and spread out the costs of doing so.
  • In each case, with the exception of the job of managing the commons, there has been no barrier of entry to anyone who wishes to use the network to their benefit. I would argue that removing neutrality would create such barriers (since start-ups may not be able to afford access). In my mind, the success of a commons need not always be measured monetarily, but rather in terms of social benefit (for more on all of this, a good book is Paul Starr’s The Creation of the Media).

• Preserving the end-to-end: This is where I think the true value of the above examples of commons lie. The idea behind end-to-end is that whatever is getting transmitted (be it cars, packets, or envelopes) gets delivered without regard for content or sender. The architecture places all of the “intelligence” at the ends, or in the applications. This content and sender neutral design allows any application designer to have a theoretically equal chance as any other because the network works the same for all of them. Neutral design left low barriers of entry to Internet business, while a tiered design would break this principle and make it more difficult for smaller Internet start-ups. Further, getting more out of the resources available has driven business and innovation further (video compression being one good example). The end-to-end principle is what makes the Internet, the Internet. Network neutrality and redundancy is what makes it so flexible, reliable, and resistant to physical attack. From my perspective, this debate tangentially is addressing the question of who is going to pay for network development. I believe sacrificing one of the crucial features of the Internet is an indirect way to solve this problem. (For more on the benefits of end-to-end design, see Lemley & Lessig’s “The end of end-to-end.”)

To me, maintaining this openness is the ultimate form of non-regulation, it allows users of the network to do whatever they choose within the bounds of the law. By regulating the commons provider, the online market is enabled to flourish. I would argue the debate shouldn’t be about limiting access, but rather about maintaining the integrity of the network architecture. Perhaps the most important thing at this point, if it’s not too late, would be to gather the necessary data about the problem to rise the debate above theory and rhetoric.
Cheers,
-john