Should the internet be more like television? Or more like ... well, the internet?

That's the question surrounding the Net Neutrality debate. At issue is whether the major telecoms can charge online content providers (e.g., websites such as this one you are reading right now) additional fees in order to avoid being blocked or slowed down for internet users.

Opponents of Net Neutrality will claim that it's about "regulating the internet," but the way I understand it, Net Neutrality is really about making sure that a few corporations (and/or the government) don't have control over what we can see on the internet. Freedom of speech is at stake.

Sonia Arrison offers a different view of Net Neutrality by equating it with support of piracy ... and what sounds like Communism:

On March 22, Jenny Toomey, executive director of the Future of Music Coalition, said, "With Rock the Net, we intend to get thousands of the nation's musicians, independent labels and music services to become part of the effort to keep a 'payola' system Forge ahead and stay on budget with simple to install HP server technology. from being established on the Internet."

What's ironic is that by supporting the issue of Net neutrality, these artists may also be supporting the theft of their products online. That would indeed ensure the elimination of payola, but it would also ensure an elimination of artists' intellectual property.

The Neutrality Myth

Net neutrality sounds nice, but belongs more properly on the ash heap of failed ideological theories. In the real world, the net is not neutral. Some Web site operators spend more than others to make their sites more appealing to consumers and, in the music industry, some songs will now be sold for a decidedly non-neutral price.

Apple just announced that it will soon sell DRM-free songs for US$1.29 which will be of higher audio quality than the other 99-cent, DRM-encoded songs sold through iTunes. Under net neutrality theory, government shouldn't allow such differentiation. It's a good thing Americans don't live under such a regime.

As far as I know, there's nothing about Net Neutrality that prevents content providers from charging whatever they want for whatever they have, under whatever terms they choose. Net Neutrality is about keeping the roads open, not forcing all the motels to charge the same rate.

In a rebuttal, Information Overlord writes:

Seriously, what is she on about?. I have read a lot of stuff on both sides of this argument but I have obviously missed the bit that says net neutrality means all prices have to be the same. What muppet said that?

"Better" than free (as in freedom)?

For a little background, consider that Net Neutrality is generally the current status quo of content on the internet (except for in less-free nations, like the People's Republic of China, where access to undesirable websites is blocked). Any user with an internet connection can visit any website that is connected to the internet. Anybody online can visit this site, for example. The user pays for her own connection, and the website owner pays for her own hosting and connectivity bandwidth. Either party has the option to pay more for bigger, faster connections.  You get what you pay for.

The wrinkle in all this comes when you consider that Net Neutrality in most countries is not the law, just the current practice, and is subject to change at the hands of the telecommunications conglomerates (and/or government agencies, in some countries). Hence the effort to codify Net Neutrality in law.

Without Net Neutrality, the government or a telecommunications conglomerate can legally block users from accessing websites that it deems undesirable for whatever reason -- maybe as a way to extract an extra toll from the website owner in order to be visible to others, or perhaps because the company or government just doesn't like what a particular website has to say. If this were to happen, then the internet would become something like television, with only a restricted assortment of content you can access, just like the selection of content available via your cable, satellite dish and/or local stations (via actual broadcasting to your aerial) is limited to just what the cable, satellite and/or local stations choose to make available.

I don't know about you, but I don't think television -- even television with 1000 channels -- is anything for the internet to emulate. (Does anyone even like most of what's out there on television?)

Across the political spectrum

Net Neutrality efforts have enjoyed vocal support from the progressive end of the political spectrum. For example, while Information Overlord notes that Net Neutrality opponent Sonia Arrison works for the Pacific Research Institute, which seems to be allied with politically conservative organizations, the Christian Coalition is one of the Charter Members of SaveTheInternet, and other supporters include Instapundit, the Parents Television Council, and businesses big and small. In other words, this is not a political issue, it's a freedom issue that has widespread grassroots support.

Meanwhile, allegations that Net Neutrality opponents are astroturfing their own "grassroots" effort persist. I have no idea and make no claims either way. It seems to me, though, that if Net Neutrality is undermined, we might not be having this vigorous public debate about it at all.

The SaveTheInternet effort, now 1 year old, is in full swing, with a swarm happening around Congressional leaders to help clarify the issues regarding Net Neutrality. SaveTheInternet is providing a petition so your voice can be heard, too.

Tougher times in Canada

Meanwhile, AmberMac points out that a Canadian website that had been leading a campaign advocating Net Neutrality has been pulled down. Visiting the site, you see the message:

Thank you to all those who have supported our websites. Due to increasing legal concerns resulting from our public participation in the Net Neutrality debate, we have at this time decided to shut down the operation of these sites.

We have no comment for the media and will not be releasing any additional detail about the factors leading up to this decision. We are currently looking for an appropriate organization to take over these properties and who has the resources to properly operate these sites.

With no further information, one can only speculate as to what's been going on there.

--

Contributing Editor Laura Scott also blogs at rare pattern. [Disclosure: Laura is also President of pingVision, LLC, a web development company that supports Net Neutrality and the SaveTheInternet effort.]