Is a neutral net really what we want?

Net neutrality is a much-debated topic. Should everyone be able to use the Internet in full anonymity and freedom? “Yes” is an enticing answer. After all, we are all fair and rational human beings, right? Discussions on net neutrality often focus on who’s in favour and who is against. But is it really that simple?

Net neutrality is a term that is used with different purposes in different discussions. At the one side, it is about filtering unsuitable/forbidden content. At the other side, it a term used in the discussion about ISPs shaping traffic.

Internet users don’t want governments and big businesses looking over their shoulders taking notes at their Internet behaviour. They want a neutral net, a net that doesn’t make distinctions based on what you do online. ISPs  aren’t thrilled with the idea that they have to police the web and point to the privacy of users and at to the technical complexities of filtering. On the other hand, we all want to be able to make the most of available bandwidth and would rather not be disturbed by those lads one block away that are continuously downloading while we want to watch the game on digital TV.

These two cases seem different, but in effect aren’t. In both cases it is about using technical means in order to manage web traffic efficiently en in accordance with the rules.

ISPs use measures such as deep packet inspection (DPI) to make sure that available bandwidth is distributed optimally. This could mean that whoever is downloading big files during Internet rush hour could be throttled a little. This raises the question of whether ISPs live up to their bandwidth promises. The best way to sort this out is to create transparency about shaping and let the market sort it out. If one ISP chooses to optimise its network for digital TV, downloaders know to stay away. Other providers may make other choices.

The same technologies are used to block certain content. There are, after all, types of content that violate rules or laws. Spam is one form of such content. I don’t think anyone objects to their ISP’s spam filter. But it isn’t neutral.

Discussions therefore should not be about who favours net neutrality and who objects, but about how neutral the net should be. A truly neutral net is more than an illusion: it is harmful. A neutral net in which everybody can have the maximum download speeds all the time requires massive investments from ISPs, which will do no good to the price of subscriptions. In a neutral net that treats all content as equal, there would be no place for countermeasures against spam, malware and worse.

This doesn’t mean that debating this issue is not important, on the contrary! But all interests would be better served with a more nuanced approach. On techliberation.com, a very good article was posted on this subject recently. Recommended!

16 March 2010