Net Neutrality: What's at Stake?

Net Neutrality: What's at Stake?
Hadopic et la loi sur le téléchargement mis en cause dans la liberté du net !!!





Net Neutrality: What's at Stake?
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 07:51 Pablo García-Mexía
The debate about the so called net neutrality has been going on for some time now: in other words, to what extent content flowing through the Internet must do so with complete freedom, away from any interference or filtering, or if, conversely, some agents (governments, telecommunications companies, service providers...) should be allowed to discriminate in favor of certain data. In the first case, the Net would be neutral; in the second, it would not.




The first choice advocates argue that the Internet was designed that way, open to any type of content, in order to promote a barrier-free or “end-to-end” communication. Thus, it is argued, episodes like two actually occurred would simply not be possible: those were the refusal of a particular Internet service provider to provide a channel for political propaganda against their own convictions, and the rejection of a telecommunications company to allow an Internet service provider to offer online phone service through the former company´s network. In other words, freedom would be at stake: political freedom in some cases, economic in others.


In addition, it is reasoned from that flank, net neutrality is a sort of guarantee for innovation: Without it, who would risk throwing onto the Internet as groundbreaking designs as at the time were those of Youtube, Google or Flickr? It is precisely the fact that any idea or content will circle the globe without obstruction that guarantees the permanent technological thrill and evolution in the Net (totalitarian censorship notwithstanding, of course, either from China, Iran or anywhere else).


Opponents of neutrality, however, point out that even today there are lots of Internet areas subject to some control (not all existing content on the Internet is accessible outright, while it´s also true that the trend clearly seems to be that of the end of "at no cost"). Furthermore, they say, this excessive tendency toward services "at no cost" is curiously the one having stifled innovation from many potential investors. Finally, the "discriminatory" functionality for certain content has always been present from its very inception on the Internet, a reason why eliminating it does not seem sensible.
In the U.S., both sides are clearly demarcated. On the one hand, the Obama Administration, headed by the Federal Communications Commission, together with some Democratic members of the House of Representatives, respectively involved in legislative initiatives aimed at erecting net neutrality as one of the technological distinctive signs of the political winds now blowing in the Federal Capital. Also in favor, among others, major content providers, to whom such legislation might notoriously benefit.


On the other hand, some of the main telecommunications companies, fearful that this legislation might reduce their maneuvering room in the Internet field, at a time where they are already facing the gradual but irreversible loss of the traditional voice business.
Somehow in-between Google and Verizon after their August 2010 deal, that would allow the former to pay for faster, better connections for its services: whether this proposal will prove or not fatally detrimental to net neutrality remains to be seen, given Google´s pivotal position in the Internet world and the fact that this company had hitherto been one of the bastions of the principle.


The issue is also relevant in Europe: the best example is the 2009 European Union (EU) legislation authorizing to disconnect users who download content illegally on file-sharing networks (P2P), even without a court order, this latter question having been left to the member States to decide. Such enactment follows the pattern of the well-known three-strike law in France, and has already begun to be implemented all over the EU, irrespective of the fact that the European Commission, late in 2009, has solemnly declared net neutrality as a principle to be upheld.


Thus for the European Union, and this is regrettable, net neutrality is an asset that must yield to the infringement of rights such as those of intellectual property. After that legislation, Europe departs from the model that will likely wind up prevailing in the U.S.


At the end of the day, that of net neutrality is the main current reflection on the Internet of a very old dilemma: that of freedom versus security. No matter how obnoxious certain behaviors could become, their prosecution should by no means imply annihilating freedom along the way.

Pablo García-Mexía, J.D., Ph.D.
Visiting professor of Internet law
The College of William & Mary

Next >