If you've turned on the T.V., checked your Facebook, or Tweeted within the last 15 years (especially the last 4 years), you've probably heard the term "Net Neutrality" slung around like a 120 pound guy named Sebastian riding a particularly pissed off bull named Dillinger at a Texan rodeo. However, like many people (myself included), you may have no clue what these nerds are talking about (save the general principal that free speech is [probably?] at stake) or how it affects you.
Now, I won't claim to be so in tune with mankind that I can understand how every person on Earth feels about a particular subject at any given time, but it seems to me that Net Neutrality is a pretty decent concept that pretty much everyone as a consumer can get behind. Turns out, I'm not that far off-base. I read dozens of articles from both sides of the subject before writing this blog post and every single article that I found agreed that the principles of Net Neutrality were necessary for a useful, functioning internet. Even those "against" Net Neutrality believed in the core principles of Net Neutrality. If you're confused by that last sentence, that's fine because I was too. How could a topic be so polarizing, yet be almost unanimously be agreed upon in principle? The answer became blatantly apparent very, very quickly.
Just like many other polarizing topics in the United States, this is not a battle of differing principles - everyone wants a free, open, fair internet. This is a battle to determine the path we take to get to where we want to be.
According to Robert McMillan with wired.com, companies like Akamai and CloudFlare have been operating CDNs for a while, allowing anyone to utilize established CDNs. However, larger companies such as Google, Netflix, and Facebook have also created CDNs with dedicated peering connections that only service their own content. McMillan argues that CDNs have, contrary to the belief that internet fast lanes are detrimental, been beneficial to consumers. CDNs allowed streaming of 4K UHD and has provided quality content delivery to millions. Furthermore, the author asserts that while companies like Google and Netflix have advantages over startups, most companies don't have enough traffic to require dedicated peering connections; If they do, it's still affordable to make accommodations.6
This is a topic that will not have a correct answer until we either get it right or we get it wrong.
So what the heck is it, pal?
Net Neutrality, according to the University of California, Berkeley, is the principal that network providers (read: ISPs, or Internet Service Providers), should be completely removed from the content they transmit on their network. Specifically, no content should be prioritized over another including targeted throttling of transfer speeds from select content providers and blocking of content. Proponents of Net Neutrality argue that the internet is most useful to consumers when all data is treated equally.1Now, I won't claim to be so in tune with mankind that I can understand how every person on Earth feels about a particular subject at any given time, but it seems to me that Net Neutrality is a pretty decent concept that pretty much everyone as a consumer can get behind. Turns out, I'm not that far off-base. I read dozens of articles from both sides of the subject before writing this blog post and every single article that I found agreed that the principles of Net Neutrality were necessary for a useful, functioning internet. Even those "against" Net Neutrality believed in the core principles of Net Neutrality. If you're confused by that last sentence, that's fine because I was too. How could a topic be so polarizing, yet be almost unanimously be agreed upon in principle? The answer became blatantly apparent very, very quickly.
The regulatory path
Advocates of Net Neutrality aim to sway the FCC to impose strict regulations on ISPs, requiring service providers to maintain a level of neutrality by law. The philosophy here is that strict regulations on ISPs would completely eradicate any temptation to engage in activities that would destabilize Net Neutrality. A major concern is the creation of "internet fast lanes" - prioritized data transfer rates for content providers that are either affiliated with or have given incentives to ISPs. The fear is that these "fast lanes" could seriously harm startups and smaller companies in that their larger, more affluent competitors would receive priority. In a world of instant gratification, a handicapped data transfer rate almost guarantees failure. These fast and slow lanes could also provide ISPs with opportunities to throttle or completely block content that does not adhere to their political or moral agenda.7 Net Neutrality advocates that seek tougher regulations on ISPs managed to win a massive victory a little over 2 years ago. On February 26, 2015, the FCC voted to enact the strongest Net Neutrality rules ever, known as the Open Internet Order.2 These new regulations imposed the following rules on ISPs3, 4:- No blocking legal content
- No throttling legal internet traffic
- No paid prioritization of some lawful traffic over other lawful traffic, including content from an ISP's affiliates, in exchange for consideration of any kind.
The free market path
Those against enforcing Net Neutrality through strict regulations adhere to the idea that free markets create competition. Through complete deregulation, this group aims to create competition between ISPs to provide more options so that in the event that ISPs engage in "non-Net Neutral" activities, consumers can easily change their service provider. The group against Net Neutrality believes that this philosophy will force service providers to self-impose Net Neutral policies in order to retain their subscribers.5, 6 One of the major arguments in the anti-Net Neutrality camp is that the so-called "fast lanes" that Net Neutrality advocates aim to keep from forming actually already exist in the form of CDNs (Content Delivery Networks).6 A CDN is created when a content provider, in an agreement with an ISP, installs routers and servers in an ISP's data center. This does two things:- A content provider is able to send data directly to the ISP's data center, eliminating their need to send data through the internet backbone where connection speeds are slower due to a combination of increased network traffic and increased distance data is required to travel.
- When a consumer attempts to access content from a content provider, the request only needs to reach the ISP's data center for the content to be sent to the consumer. This completely eliminates the need for the ISP to route the request to the content provider and wait for the content to be sent back to the ISP before finally being sent to the consumer.
 |
| How CDNs and Peering are already creating fast lanes - an illustration from wired.com |
According to Robert McMillan with wired.com, companies like Akamai and CloudFlare have been operating CDNs for a while, allowing anyone to utilize established CDNs. However, larger companies such as Google, Netflix, and Facebook have also created CDNs with dedicated peering connections that only service their own content. McMillan argues that CDNs have, contrary to the belief that internet fast lanes are detrimental, been beneficial to consumers. CDNs allowed streaming of 4K UHD and has provided quality content delivery to millions. Furthermore, the author asserts that while companies like Google and Netflix have advantages over startups, most companies don't have enough traffic to require dedicated peering connections; If they do, it's still affordable to make accommodations.6
Net Neutrality won though, right? Why is this still a discussion?
Yes and no. While the FCC did pass the Open Internet Order in 2015, the 2016 election brought in a new administration. With new administration (especially one so drastically different from the previous administration) comes new opportunities to change or remove policy. The new chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, supports a free and open internet and the basic principles of Net Neutrality, but rejects using regulation to enforce the philosophy.8 On April 26, 2017, Pai laid out a plan to undo the Open Internet Order (the transcript can be read by following this link) in which he states that the proposal to reverse the regulations would be put to vote at the FCC's next meeting, which is May 18th.9What's the author think?
To be perfectly honest, both sides of the aisle raise great arguments in the debate for Net Neutrality while at the same time show tragic flaws. I believe that the peering deals that have been made have, by nature, already destabilized Net Neutrality and have allowed corporate super giants the luxury of being able to enjoy exponential unchecked growth. I'm also in favor of breaking up the massive ISPs, allowing smaller ISPs to grow and create a competitive marketplace in which I, as a consumer, have the power to choose the service provider that best suits me. On the other hand, I worry about what will happen if regulations are lifted. Currently, I have the choice between Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable), AT&T, and HughesNet (I admittedly didn't even know this was a service provider, let alone one that existed in my area, until I just checked my local ISPs). Spectrum and AT&T are massive providers that would not be bothered in the slightest if they lost my business. What if both providers decided to start prioritizing or blocking certain traffic? I have no other option to fall back on. Additionally, both AT&T and Spectrum are plenty big enough to snuff out any competition that may try to spring up in my area. Honestly, I would be more in favor of some sort of true Net Neutrality in which ISPs are only allowed to use their data centers to facilitate the transfer of data to and from all locations equally. Furthermore, I believe ISPs should neither allow the creation of CDNs nor allow Peering in their data centers. Finally, ISPs should have a layer of abstraction between themselves and the data that flows through their data centers, making them strictly facilitators of data. I believe that this scenario would provide maximum privacy while providing equal service to all customers.What now, Hoss?
Well, now that you have the information and resources at your disposal, you need to decide where you stand on the subject. With the next FCC meeting, and with it the vote to reverse the Open Internet Order, coming up in just over a week, now is the time to voice your opinion.- If you are in favor of less regulation and want the FCC to repeal the Open Internet Order, you can find the contact information for the FCC by clicking here.
- Alternatively, if you are in favor of the Open Internet Order, you can also contact the FCC by following this link. Additionally, there is an active petition to protect the Open Internet Order that you can sign by following this link.
Comments
Post a Comment