It's pretty amazing to watch people still discovering the power and the ways the internet is used this days - and what uses people will have for it in the future.

For you to understand what I'm talking about: internet runs today over a "neutral network". What that means? Well, you can access any web-site, webservice, internet service (as e-mail over POP, SMTP or IMAP). Without the provider paying anything for their content to stream over someone else network.

The Forbes article linked above attacks net neutrality with poor arguments, in the bottom line, saying net neutrality makes impossible for network holders to improve their own networks, because they need to maintain the interoperability.

While this is true - interoperability is key concept in net neutrality - there's a lot more in play than that. Let's see:

• Free services: gone
  When we talk about a net that is neutral, it's simple to provide a free service over that. You have to pay companies to host your application and people to develop it, but you don't have to pay anything to allow other to use it. Without network neutrality, this would not be true and zillions of web-sites, webservices and etc would never existed - or be invented, at all.
• Universal access: gone
  It's clear that when you're connected to a network that is not neutral, you'll have access to what that network allows you to. You'll not have access to anything that is not paying for them.
• What more?
  It's quite obvious: services like Skype will work... only if Skype pays something for the network holders. Calls would not be free anymore. The price of other calls would be astonishing.

And we can go over and over it. For me is clear that the talk here is something like "evolution for the consumer" or "evolution for the big companies". There's a lot of other questions related and such few lines like this (or the article I cite) aren't final words nor they even cover all questions. It's legitimate for the network holders to think and question "what they get when people just use their network to pass by". But ending net neutrality is not the answer - I don't even guess one answer at all.

But it seems to me that we're coming back to the days where big [TV|Radio|Journal|Publishing] companies ruled, overwhelming authors AND consumers with THEIR choices or, at least, with the ones who have the money to pay to publish/broadcast. In all cases, who lose? CONSUMER. The user. You, me and everyone who's not a network holder or a someone closely related to then.

Update: it seems like the proposal is to deliver some things faster than others and not to block content. BUT, it don't invalidate any of the above arguments AND it's like opening a hole in a dam - just take one to flood all the valley...

Related links for "Net neutrality vs. net evolution?"

Net neutrality in Wikipedia

Washington Post's article about net neutrality

Save the Internet campaign

Slate article: Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality

Google Blog: Vinton Cerf letter to US congressman about net neutrality - quick note: Vint Cerf is one of the "internet fathers" and could not speak directly to the US Congress 'cause he was in a ceremony receiving the "Presidential Medal of Freedom", the highest honor a civilian can receive in the US. I'm not one for medals or honors, specially from governments, but Vint Cerf certainly deserves it. Google was represented by Microsoft (!). The both companies agree: net neutrality must remain true!

Labels: choice, freedom, google, internet, internet business, microsoft, net neutrality, us, user-centric, vint cerf

Leave a comment | Links to this text |