Network Neutrality—To Stay or Go?

The face of the Internet is changing. From the basic applications and the
repository of information it is fast becoming a platform for diverse pursuits
and activities. There has been increasing speculation about the outcomes
resulting from the tussle over allocation of spectrum for wireless services.
Whatever the result, the ramifications will be felt throughout the world. It has
been felt that the network neutrality principle would be threatened by this
move. The telecom companies are lobbying for levying surcharges on content
providers that are not their retail customers; prioritizing data packet delivery
based on the ownership affiliation of the content, or the source or destination
of the content; as well as building a new “fast lane” online that consigns
Internet content and applications to a relatively slow, bandwidth-starved
portion of the broadband connection. So should the unspoken yet accepted
law of network neutrality go or should the Internet remain as it is today?

Mr A I feel that the Internet today enjoys the popularity that it does simply
because it does not make the user feel hindered at any step in his virtual
journey. However, I do feel that if the journey itself starts only after one has
bought a ticket and that too with certain complexities involved the charm of
the exploration will wear off. It has always been felt that the remarkable
social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many ways directly
attributable to the architectural features that were part of its initial design. The
Internet was calculated to be an entity with no gatekeepers over new content
or services. Experts often feel that the great strides made in this sector are
because of allowing the contributors to work unhindered for its growth rather
than attributing centrality to the controlling features. Consequently, the
Internet has created a platform for innovation. This has led to an upsurge of
step ups—from VoIP to wi-fi, to blogging—many innovations that might
never have evolved if the regulations had been far more pronounced. I really
think that network neutrality needs to stay and there is no need for changing
the scenario drastically.

Miss B Today ISPs, and crucially telecom companies, are up in arms

demanding that the unwritten policy changes, with support from free market
lobby groups. The reason for their angst is the stunning growth of Web 2.0
services such as video, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and file sharing.
The ISPs feel the services demand too much of their infrastructure, thus
people need to pay for access to certain content which requires more
bandwidth. The telecom companies are definitely being threatened by VoIP.
It would be only reasonable to let phone and cable companies charge Internet
firms additional fees for using their high-speed lines. Telecommunication
companies spend billions of dollars to construct a fibre-optic network for
delivering high-speed Internet and cable TV services. Network operators are
looking to recoup the cost of the fibre-optic cable and other infrastructure
pieces that make a high-speed Internet possible. They argue that the upgrades
are necessary to deliver such innovations as high-definition video-on-demand
and high-quality teleconferencing. They expect businesses and consumers to
share the cost of network upgrades.

Mr C Ever since the commercialisation of the Internet began on a serious

note, the number of users has increased manifold. The tribe of loyalists have
worked their way forward contributing to its various aspects—the speed of
their connections and the variety of things they can do on the Net. A
remarkable feature of the process has been that all this came about with a
mere touch of regulation. Excepting pornography and gambling, no
bureaucrats have decided what services could be provided over the Internet,
or who could offer them or how they could charge for them. Some of the
service ideas have been bad, and failed. Some are wonderful. But many
would never have been tried if there were regulations telling businesses
whom they could charge, how much or how little, or what they could or
couldn’t sell on the Net. Freedom, actually has been the Web surfer’s friend.

Miss D One major likelihood is that the telecom companies would move
on to create a two tiered ‘pipeline’, where the paid for priority data gets a
faster movement and the low priority data may be sidelined depending solely
on the discretion of the provider. An individual’s favourite Website may be
relegated to the Internet’s slow lane if the companies that run its backbone
network have their way. Proposed services from telecommunications and
cable companies would let ISPs and other Web businesses pay extra to
receive preferential treatment for their data packets, carrying everything from
video to music to text over the Internet. Such packet prioritization would
deliver a richer experience to the visitors of that particular site—a valuable
perk for high-bandwidth services like streaming video. Prioritizing content
based on type—meaning a quick, uninterrupted data flow, such as streaming
media—is supported by both consumers and content providers. The good part
is that such services will give incentives to the telecom and cable firms—by
giving them a new revenue stream—to upgrade their networks, which will
boost overall service quality.

Mr A I really do not think that charging and such two-tier system by the
telecom companies is justified. The very scheme goes against a basic tenet of
the Internet, that all packets are treated equally. At this point in time the
Internet now allows information to move in data packets through networks of
computers and routers on a “best efforts basis”. In other words, the system
routes packets with little regard for what type of information or applications
they contain or who created them. There are apprehensions that prioritization
will allow established firms with deep pockets to position the virtual deck
against smaller, yet potential rivals. Also, businesses already pay for
bandwidth, therefore the extra charges are nothing but double-billing.

Miss B A decade ago the big telephone companies were complacent

about the Internet. Now they see Internet applications beginning to have
revenue impact on their core businesses. Skype, for example, is an Internet
telephony application that is capable of better voice quality than telephony,
with useful features impossible for a conventional telephone company to
deploy. It isn’t tied to the telephone company’s network and it can run on any
Internet connection. This is a simple yet effective example to explain why the
carriers are now rooting for their gains. The largest providers of today’s
Internet infrastructure are also the strongest opponents of network neutrality.
If their profit stream diminishes, which it must if the Internet is to remain
neutral and open, then it is only simple to note that we strike at the root of
infrastructure. IP protocol inventor Robert Kahn also feels that net neutrality
is a slogan for a mandate that would prevent innovation on the networks. He
and other engineers feel that legislation could restrict developments that
would improve data delivery and alleviate traffic burdens.

Miss D The issue of Net neutrality is so contentious that many people

debating it cannot even agree on a definition. But there are a few things that
come across as logical observations and need to be made a note of. The state
of affairs as related to the Internet, and the carriers is very fluid. Someone has
to pay for the infrastructure. For many years the people who stood up for the
Internet, advocated that it should not be subjected to government regulations
but rely on interoperability and market forces to resolve itself. That idea was
largely successful with only physical network (spectrum, fibre, etc) coming
under the ambit of regulatory law. But, so far the Internet and applications
remained outside. However, the business model has changed. The physical
network isn’t as important any more. And now the matters will have to be
perceived in a new light. What happens ultimately is for tomorrow to herald.
And whatever the outcome it will be felt across the globe.