dot slash bang

In everyday, vernacular speech, the terms “Internet” and “World Wide Web” are often used interchangeably. However, from a technical perspective, there is an important distinction. The Internet is a vast network connecting computers of all shapes and sizes located all over the world. The World Wide Web is an application that uses the Internet to display web pages. To borrow a simplistic, yet not too far off-the-mark analogy, the Internet is a series of tubes. The web is one of many things that flows through the tubes. Other things besides web pages flow through the tubes too, such as streaming videos of live puppies, every episode of Lost, and emails from Nigerian princes. The basic idea is that the tubes don’t care what kind of crap flow through them; In some sense, they are neutral. The tubes are neutral, that is, unless their owners (i.e. big telecom companies) are not. In the dry and aloof world where technology meets public policy and governmental regulation, there is a raging debate going on as to how much control network operators should have on the data that flows through their lines. This arid and hairsplitting debate is called “network neutrality.”

One thing that doesn’t cross people’s minds too much is that the Internet did not have to develop into such an open, unrestricted network as it is today. If one business or entity had been able to make pieces of it proprietary, they almost certainly would have. For example, in the mid 90s Microsoft tried to use its power to create a browser monopoly. Had it succeeded, perhaps the only browser that would work with the web would be Internet Explorer. Or perhaps if some other large telecommunication company such as AT&T or Comcast had been able to push some proprietary network protocol, we would find the internet more like the terrible “Internet” feature on your cell phone where all you can do is check the weather or download some overpriced Fergie ringtone. What makes the Internet great is that it is largely unregulated. The owners of the network infrastructure don’t regulate the content, which is why it is viable to start an Internet business and why the Web has such a folksy feel to it.

In actuality, net neutrality is a catch-all buzzword for anything that has to do with regulating the internet in any way, shape, or form, including (but not limited to)

• Tiered Service: Some are afraid telecom companies would want to charge for Internet in the same way they charge for cable television. Imagine if your Internet service provider forced you to choose between “Internet packages” in the same way you have to choose between cable packages. Perhaps the basic package would allow you to visit MSN and Wikipedia, but if you want Google and Facebook, you have to upgrade.
• Throttling: There is a limit to the amount of data that can flow through the network. Thus one way for telecom companies to increase their capacity is to slow down certain kinds of traffic. For example, Comcast recently got grilled by Kevin Martin and the FCC for slowing down Bit-Torrent file sharing traffic — a notorious bandwidth hog. Some see this as a violation of their rights. Others, however, see this as good network hygiene: Why should the quality of my skype call suffer because my neighbor is downloading more anime than one human being could ever watch in a single lifetime? There is another nefarious incarnation of throttling. Suppose Comcast decided to slow down traffic from contnet providers (i.e. Google, MSN, Yahoo, Facebook) who wern’t thier own customers.
• Capping: Anther way to increase the capacity of one’s network is to simply put a cap on how much any one person can consume. Comcast recently announced that it was putting a 250 gigabyte per month cap on the amount of data residential users can download. It argues that 250 GB is alot of data–enough for about 62,500 songs or 125 movies; it’s about 100 times what a typical user consumes. It does sound like alot of data. But its actually about four hours of HD tv per day. Not as astronomical as it first seemed, especially as you begin to hook up more and more devices to your home Internet connection. It also sounds like Comcast might be trying to use its muscle to position itself for the upcoming streaming HD video war.
• Future Wireless Services: Most people in the US access the Internet over a good old fashioned cable or DSL connection. In the future, however, the Internet will become more mobile. Last spring the FCC auctioned off some of the wireless spectrum that TV broadcasters will soon stop using. I’m talking about the good stuff, not the schwag currently being used by the cell phones. The 700 megahertz, beach-front property stuff. The stuff that can go through lead walls a mile thick. Along with this auction was a hot debate between Google and the Telecom companies. Google lobbied the FCC to require that the winner of certain parts of the spectrum to adhere to certain neutrality standards. The Telecom companies, of course, didn’t want the government to dictate a business model.
• Fast Lane for Content Providers – Last week, Google — the long standing net neutrality champion — has approached Internet Service Providers with plans that the Wall Street Journal seems to think is a reversal on their staunch net neutrality stance. The plans would allow Google to place their own servers inside the internet service provider’s network, speeding up traffic to Google-provided services such as You Tube. Some worry this is the first step to a tiered internet where content providers with money are able to afford the fast lane, effectively creating a barrier to entry for smaller, innovative startups. Google claims this is just standard network engineering practice.

Net neutrality means something different to everyone. And by everyone I mean internet nerds and policy wonks; no one else gives a flying flip about it. Because the people debating are notorious for holding near-religious convictions about their pet causes, the debate over net neutrality is trench warfare being fought out in blogs, comment sections, and forums across the web. Just google ‘net neutrality’, and you are sure to find yourself immersed in a heated flame war between two people, both claiming that if the other had his way, it would mean certain doom for the Internet as we know it. On one side you have paranoid geeks who are certain big telecom are going to restrict the internet so much that it will be faster to print out emails and deliver them via carrier pigeons than to click send from your inbox. They see it as all part of telecom’s grand scheme to force you to watch Battlestar Galactica on cable TV instead of downloading it from pirate bay. In the other corner are the libertarian geeks who are sure that if the government and its regulations so much as looks at the Internet, the US will crumble into a socialist nightmare. Although they disagree on who the enemy is both sides would agree on two things: that an open internet is important and that everyone have a stake in keeping the tubes free.