Net Neutrality

This week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled against the FCC who had imposed so-called “net neutrality” restrictions on Comcast.  The Philadelphia-based cable giant was intentionally slowing down Internet traffic from certain protocols.  Comcast performs deep packet inspection and treats data differently based on what type of traffic it is – and potentially – who is sending/receiving it.  Comcast claims it must de-prioritize certain types of traffic in order to maintain an efficient network that will provide the best Internet experience for the most consumers.

The FCC argues that Comcast must treat all forms of traffic without prejudice for fear of creating a two-tiered Internet: a slow lane for traffic that Comcast would prefer not to carry and a fast lane for “preferred” data providers.  Comcast and other ISPs are fearful of become a dumb pipe.  The last thing they want to be seen as is a utility company.  They would prefer to maintain the ability to treat the data running on their network as they see fit.

At this juncture, you may be asking what this has to do with the constituency served by Historia Salutis.  This issue is significant for many groups including independent content producers such as Reformed Forum.  Why? GigaOm reports:

Because Comcast could potentially slow down the delivery of our streaming video. Why would it do that? To protect its multichannel cable-TV oligopoly, and its owned and operated cable networks — including The Golf Channel, Style and G4 –- from web-based competition.

An added layer of complexity comes to view when we consider that Comcast recently purchased a majority stake in NBC Universal.  Comcast hypothetically can speed the delivery of its own content and slow down content from other networks.  Is this a false alarm?  I don’t think so.  These are legitimate concerns, but the question at this point is How should the government and/or consumers deal with the situation?  Should it be regulated or left to competition?

Jim Harper of the CATO Institute, a libertarian think-tank, provided a helpful rundown and perspective on the subject during an episode of the institute’s daily podcast.  Personally, I have libertarian leanings, but the problem with the argument from competition is that for many Americans, the competition necessary to make it work simply doesn’t exist.  Many consumers do not have more than one viable broadband option.  Moreover, by its very nature, the Internet is interconnected.  Though I might be a Verizon customer, if my bits happen to pass through Comcast routers, my traffic may still suffer.

This is an important issue.  I would encourage you to read up on the subject and study the arguments.  The United States is nearing several key decisions that could shape how a large portion of the Internet works for several decades.

Links

• NY Times Net Neutrality topic page

post photo by jurvetson

Camden Bucey is the president of Reformed Forum. He graduated with an MDiv in 2011 and is currently a PhD student at Westminster Theological Seminary. Camden is a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a licentiate of the presbytery of Philadelphia. You can follow Camden on Twitter at @camdenbucey. This entry was posted on Saturday, April 10th, 2010 at 8:23 am and is filed under Cultural Commentary, Headline. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.