Net neutrality is key to the Internet's future, and it's under threat

Unlike many other media, like print, television, and radio, the Internet is largely uncontrolled. Despite the fact that the majority of critical Internet infrastructure is based in the United States, and is therefore subject to the influence of the U.S. government, things remain quite open. The current system of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which regulates top-level domains, and Tier 1 networks providing backbone infrastructure has worked well, and the Internet has flourished.

But, according to experts, a push by many Internet and content providers for increased monetization of connectivity threatens to upset the balance and hamper further development.

Network neutrality is a term being tossed around a lot these days. In its most basic form it describes a network that is indifferent to the traffic that’s sent over it. Whether you’re using Skype to chat with your grandparents in Hong Kong, downloading porn, or watching a child crash repeatedly on YouTube, all traffic gets the same priority.

You may be surprised to learn that this isn’t the case for the majority of Internet users. Most Internet service providers, including Canada’s, currently employ a technology known as “packet shaping”. This allows the ISPs to give priority to certain traffic like e-mail or Web browsing while slowing (sometimes significantly) peer-to-peer download services like BitTorrent to try and provide more service on less infrastructure. This means that if you’re paying for a 10-megabyte Internet connection, you’re not free to use that speed for whatever you want.

Prioritizing certain kinds of Internet traffic is just the tip of the iceberg. On a larger scale, technologies like packet shaping could lead to tiered Internet access. This would look a lot like the TV-channel packages that you order. A basic package could include Google, Yahoo, and MSN, but if you wanted to make use of a bandwidth-intensive Web site like YouTube that would cost extra.

The reverse of this concept has also been tossed around. Instead of you paying to access YouTube, the content provider could pay the network to allow the content to reach you. A costing regime like this would make it very difficult, if not virtually impossible, for startups to provide a new and innovative service. Companies like Twitter, which recently had to drop SMS capability in Canada, might never get out of the starting gate if this barrier is put in place.

With the importance and prevalence of a service as important as the Internet, it hasn’t taken long for government and regulatory bodies to chime in. In the U.S., ISPs are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, which last year upheld a complaint against Comcast, deciding that it had illegally inhibited users from using file-sharing software through packet shaping. This victory for Net neutrality was recently threatened by a failed amendment to U.S. President Barack Obama’s stimulus package. The amendment aimed to augment a portion of the legislation meant for broadband network expansion with language that “allows for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity, including child pornography and copyright infringement”. In one fell swoop this amendment would have undone the FCC judgment, restoring the power of the ISPs to prioritize traffic as they see fit. Beyond traffic management, this amendment would have opened the door to content control, not only regulating the speeds at which services are delivered, but what services you have access to.

In Canada, ISPs are regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which has been involved in the debate only recently despite the government being aware of the issue for years. The most significant ruling of late was in regards to a complaint by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers against Bell Canada complaining that their Internet users (on leased Bell lines) had their access unfairly throttled. Bell argued that it treats all Internet traffic the same, and the CRTC sided with them as Bell’s direct customers were subject to the same traffic prioritization regime as CAIP members’ resale accounts.

Although this appears to be a decision against network neutrality, the CRTC has opened the door to public discussion and is set to hold a hearing on the issue this July. The deadline for submitting public comments is February 23. (For more information, see Neutrality.ca.)

The Internet remains largely free and open, but service providers in Canada are already taking the first steps to limit that freedom with traffic prioritization. As corporations, they have an economic incentive to continue down this path and seek out other sources of revenue through increased control over your Internet access. Net neutrality has been one of the primary drivers for innovation, and the rapid expansion and development of the Internet. Without an open and free World Wide Web, its future is anyone’s guess.