Net Neutrality

The problem of bandwidth has cropped up again, as it periodically does. If anything, I'm surprised it's taken this long: I expected that the explosion of content that arose when "Web 2.0" enabled individuals to dump exabytes of text, photos, and video on the Internet would have jammed the network long before now.

The core conflict is between companies that own the networks an the companies that use the wires to transmit data. The latter camp has been more successful than usual in getting the media and certain members of the public spun up by representing the problem as a civil-rights issue rather than a technical problem, under the banner of "net neutrality."

Naturally, the propaganda has overwhelmed the facts, which are a bit complicated and far less interesting than a shouting-match among flamboyant buffoons. And naturally, those of us in the industry are being asked, "what's all this noise about net neutrality?"

And so ...

While the metaphor of "information superhighway" is a bit outdated and hackneyed, it's a good way to visualize the problem of traffic on the Internet, which sends data packets across networks in much the same way as vehicles travel across the network of roadways. In that way "bandwidth" can be understood as the capacity of the roads, and "congestion" as being akin to a traffic jam.

The challenge, since the beginning, has been in building out the roads to accommodate the traffic. Traffic can change in an instant, whereas it takes a significant amount of time and money to expand a roadway - and while the network providers have generally been attentive to the problem, there are times when the change in traffic patterns has taken place more quickly than expected, and the roads have become jammed.

When traffic jams occurs, traffic is diverted from the main highways: motorists discover that they can make their trip faster if they exit the main highway and cut across residential streets, which, in time, become jammed up with "highway traffic," such that the people who live in the neighborhood cannot back out of their own driveways due to a stream of traffic traveling across residential streets that were not designed to accommodate a constant flow 18-wheelers.

The solution for the residents is to close neighborhood roads to freeway traffic - in effect, to put up a "no trucks" sign and limit the traffic through their neighborhood to the residents and certain companies that are making deliveries to the neighborhood. With such a measure in place, the residents are happy, but the trucking companies who want to cut through their neighborhood to avoid the freeway traffic are stymied.

An in the case of "net neutrality," the trucking companies are claiming that they should have a right to drive their trucks through the neighborhood, and have spun up the residents of other neighborhoods by claiming that their inability to drive across the residential streets prevents them from delivering certain goods to the market - and therefore, that the "no trucks" restriction has harmed all by preventing certain goods to reach the marketplace.

Naturally, there's more to it than the metaphor will allow. When it comes to the Internet, even the superhighways are owned by private companies, the trucking companies pay for the right to use certain roads, the companies that maintain the roads are either unable to provide them with more capacity or unwilling to do so at a price customers are willing to pay, etc. You can easily stretch the metaphor to the breaking point, but I think it highlights some of the fundamental issues:

Primarily, while Internet congestion is a problem that ultimately affects users, the front lines of the battle are drawn between companies: specifically, the companies that own the networks, and the companies that want to send more traffic than the network can presently accommodate, without paying to upgrade the system.

Second, that "freedom of expression" has very little to do with the matter. To return to the analogy, the network providers don't care about the cargo inside the trucks, merely that there are too many vehicles on the road, and their restrictions are based on volume, giving preference to their own high-volume customers who pay for the use of their roads.

Third, that Internet congestion is temporary. Eventually, the lanes will be widened, traffic will flow, and everyone will be happy once again ... until even the expanded capacity is being consumed and there is yet again a need to expand. Seems to happen every so often, and I think it may be a while before it's possible to predict fluctuations with any degree of accuracy.

And finally, to be very cautions about the causes you support during times of crisis - because the restrictions and regulations put in place to cure a "temporary" problem will be even more damaging to your freedom and well-being in the long run. Witness the effects of the legislation put in place to address the great depression, or the terrorist incidents of the early 21st century - and the long-term effects of ill-conceived solution to short-term problems should be very clear.