Net Neutrality

One of the first topics that came to mind when I set out my blogging objectives was to discuss Net Neutrality. Much like the Indian gaming bills that popped up during this year’s elections, there’s a lot of noise on both sides of the issue - and the issue is anything but dead.

Fundamentally, the argument goes like this:

Net Neutrality requires that everyone on the web be connected equally, ensuring that nobody gets preferred or reduced-scope web service.

Pretty simple, no? The problem that I have with the argument for “Neutrality” is that it denies the fundamental assumptions of the equity of markets. Basically, Neutrality ensures that the biggest burdens on the web - presently stuff like video and streaming audio - are the most protected by this. Businesses serving up ample amounts of content to a thirsty audience can soak up loads of bandwidth, and not have to put forward further resources to make their contributions worthwhile.

I like the idea of a gradient web and of tiered services. Already we have that in home broadband - well in all web connectivity for that matter. If you want to be cheap, buy NetZero dial-up and pay $10 a month. If you want to step it up to broadband, go with a basic DSL. Go another level quicker with cable services. And if you’re really looking to connect quickly, a fixed cable like fiber optic or direct T-1 line is always an option. These services range from a few bucks a month all the way up to thousands of dollars, and provide the user with the appropriate connection burden.

Within the context of corporate pipes, I think it’s reasonable for businesses and online organizations to be rated the same way. I’ve got to believe that YouTube, for instance, draws a ton more resources out of networks than the likes of Craigslist. And the hardware & infrastructure providers, under “Net Neutrality” are stuck with just widening the pipes (or more likely, choosing not to) without any compensation plan.

It’s odd that I’m in the web biz and still think non-neutral networks are a good idea. But I think it’s reasonable for infrastructure providers to be able to establish market leverage how they see fit. It will spur innovation because it’s incentivized,  and as usual that strikes me as the most appropriate technique.