Spring Break
Battleground: World Wide Web
Royal Purple Staff
Issue date: 10/8/08 Section: Opinion
Telecommunications companies build the infrastructure the internet operates on, and as such they want the right to control what goes across their property.
Seems fair. They already exert control by means of selling bandwidth; you pay more for a faster connection.
The issue of control became more significant last year, however, when Comcast, the nation's second largest internet service provider, began to discriminate against certain types of information.
Individuals that used "BitTorrent" applications, which by some measures composed over one third of total internet traffic, noticed either slow speeds or a complete inability to connect to peers, or others wanting to share files, legitimate or otherwise. The company initially denied they were blocking or prioritizing any traffic, though it eventually caved in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Network neutrality is a concept stating all internet traffic should be treated equally. A bit sent by you is no different from a bit sent by the guy two houses over or the big corporate headquarters downtown.
To put it in perspective, say you were entering Illinois on a trip to Chicago. You pay a toll to use the interstate. The cost is based on the number of axles the vehicle you're driving has, which is a rough method of estimating size.
Now let's say one third of vehicles contain people trying to get somewhere for vacation, the other two thirds for something else. When you get to the toll booth you're asked why you're using the freeway, and if it's for leisure you're told to wait at a wayside for a few hours unless you want to pay a premium.
Does that seem fair? This same analogy can be applied to flying on an airline, shipping a package or making a phone call. The reason shouldn't determine the cost.
Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, are lobbying the government to ban discrimination of Web traffic.
While network neutrality seems like common sense, even to the "inventor" of the Web, Tim Berners-Lee, protecting it by law doesn't share the same support.
Large telecommunications companies feel explicit laws violate their right to free speech and would stifle infrastructure growth. However, telecom companies already receive taxpayer money for network growth and the internet is a phenomenon thats growth is unlikely to be so easily curbed-there are now over 1.4 billion users according to internetworldstats .com. In addition, the copper wire, fiber optic and coaxial cable lines that make up the infrastructure often lie on public property and therefore are subject to de facto regulation.
Looking to politicians won't help either, because any move toward neutrality would be viciously played by the telecom companies as an attack on the economy. Even Barack Obama, who came out strongly for net neutrality in 2007, has changed his formerly explicit stance on the issue to vague rhetoric.
Fortunately, the FCC has taken steps to regulate, and we can only hope they continue to step up to the plate in the coming years.
Seems fair. They already exert control by means of selling bandwidth; you pay more for a faster connection.
The issue of control became more significant last year, however, when Comcast, the nation's second largest internet service provider, began to discriminate against certain types of information.
Individuals that used "BitTorrent" applications, which by some measures composed over one third of total internet traffic, noticed either slow speeds or a complete inability to connect to peers, or others wanting to share files, legitimate or otherwise. The company initially denied they were blocking or prioritizing any traffic, though it eventually caved in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Network neutrality is a concept stating all internet traffic should be treated equally. A bit sent by you is no different from a bit sent by the guy two houses over or the big corporate headquarters downtown.
To put it in perspective, say you were entering Illinois on a trip to Chicago. You pay a toll to use the interstate. The cost is based on the number of axles the vehicle you're driving has, which is a rough method of estimating size.
Now let's say one third of vehicles contain people trying to get somewhere for vacation, the other two thirds for something else. When you get to the toll booth you're asked why you're using the freeway, and if it's for leisure you're told to wait at a wayside for a few hours unless you want to pay a premium.
Does that seem fair? This same analogy can be applied to flying on an airline, shipping a package or making a phone call. The reason shouldn't determine the cost.
Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, are lobbying the government to ban discrimination of Web traffic.
While network neutrality seems like common sense, even to the "inventor" of the Web, Tim Berners-Lee, protecting it by law doesn't share the same support.
Large telecommunications companies feel explicit laws violate their right to free speech and would stifle infrastructure growth. However, telecom companies already receive taxpayer money for network growth and the internet is a phenomenon thats growth is unlikely to be so easily curbed-there are now over 1.4 billion users according to internetworldstats .com. In addition, the copper wire, fiber optic and coaxial cable lines that make up the infrastructure often lie on public property and therefore are subject to de facto regulation.
Looking to politicians won't help either, because any move toward neutrality would be viciously played by the telecom companies as an attack on the economy. Even Barack Obama, who came out strongly for net neutrality in 2007, has changed his formerly explicit stance on the issue to vague rhetoric.
Fortunately, the FCC has taken steps to regulate, and we can only hope they continue to step up to the plate in the coming years.
Be the first to comment on this story