Running Head: NET NEUTRALITY 1

Net Neutrality

Teresa J. Rothaar

Wilmington University

NET NEUTRALITY

Net Neutrality

What is Net Neutrality?

From a market-based perspective, Net Neutrality is about the conflict between finite

resources and infinite demand for those resources. In this case, the seller (an ISP) of a finite

resource (bandwidth) distributes that resource among people who want to buy it (Internet users)

(Mataconis, 2010).

Arguably, the Internet has never been truly “neutral.” Since the days when AOL floppies

were sent by mail, ISP’s have offered tiered services, charging more for faster speeds.

Additionally, during peak usage times, ISP’s adjust all customers’ bandwidth so that everyone

can have a roughly equal piece of the pie (Canono, 2010). Therefore, like all other products and

services, Internet users get what they pay for.

However, individual users aren’t the issue when it comes to Net Neutrality; the content

they choose to access is. While browsing Facebook or reading the L.A. Times uses relatively

little bandwidth, downloading all nine seasons of The X-Files or streaming the latest episode of

Orange is the New Black eats bandwidth like candy, leading to bottlenecks, and corresponding

adjustments by ISP’s, that slow everyone’s service.

Net Neutrality vs. Pay-For-Priority

ISP’s have valid concerns about bandwidth hogging. It was recently reported that Netflix

and YouTube alone consume half of the Internet’s bandwidth (Marks, 2014). Since bandwidth is

a finite resource, it seems inequitable that one person’s Internet access should be significantly

slowed down because their neighbor enjoys streaming or downloading video content. Doesn’t

that amount to them paying for their neighbor’s Internet usage? Shouldn’t everyone just pay for

what they use? Since the ISP is the seller, shouldn’t they be allowed to charge a premium for

2

NET NEUTRALITY

activities that exceed “normal” usage of their service? Further, ISP’s aren’t simply providing

service to consumers; they are providing a way for websites to reach those consumers. If one

website is taking up an inordinate amount of bandwidth, shouldn’t the ISP be permitted to insist

that site either not take up as much bandwidth (by reducing the speed at which that content

loads) or pay the ISP?

However, Net Neutrality advocates argue that allowing ISP’s to charge content providers

fees amounts to payola (Karr, 2014) and would result in consumers not getting what they paid

for, which is Internet access at predefined speeds, and not varying speeds according to the

particular site or content being accessed (Canono). In his article, Mataconis brings up another

issue: Broadband access in the U.S. is not being bought and sold in a truly free market. The

majority of consumers can choose between only one or two providers. This creates a situation

where an ISP such as Comcast, which is also an entertainment company, can provide preferential

bandwidth speeds for its own content … and slow competitors’ sites to a crawl. If Comcast’s

customers don’t like it, they may not be able to switch providers.

Comcast was already caught with its hands in the cookie jar. In 2007, it was discovered

that Comcast was blocking traffic from peer-to-peer applications such as Bit Torrent; the same

year, AT&T censored a criticism of George W. Bush during a live stream of a Pearl Jam concert

(Glaser, 2014).

Net Neutrality & Piracy

It is estimated that illegal downloads of copyrighted content take up more than 11% of

Internet traffic, and critics of Net Neutrality argue that treating all Internet traffic equally

encourages piracy. As more bandwidth is taken up, ISP’s must upgrade their networks to handle

the traffic, and if they cannot charge content producers for access, the costs must be passed onto

3

NET NEUTRALITY

consumers. As consumers see higher bills, the logic goes, they are more likely to see

downloading whatever movies, television shows, and music they want as their God-given right

(Siegelbaum, 2014).

Meanwhile, the entertainment and music industries, facing heavy losses, continue to push

the government to “do something” to address online piracy. This is how we ended up with bills

such as SOPA and PIPA. Though, technically, these bills are dead, like a Walking Dead zombie,

they’re refusing to stay buried. After Sony was hacked in December 2014, it was found that the

MPAA, undaunted by the defeat of SOPA-PIPA, was using backdoor channels to get what it

wanted, such as pressuring and paying off state attorney generals to target Google and demand

that it take down sites that were allegedly engaging in piracy (Sutton, 2015).

My Experiences & Opinions

I do not download a lot of bandwidth-heavy content, and I only rarely experience

noticeable slowing in my Internet access. I did experience slowing a few weeks ago when

attempting to download a rather large app for my Kindle, iBird. iBird is, essentially, an

interactive birding book, and the database is very large. It took me the better part of an evening

to download it, and at one point (as advised on the app’s site) I had to delete and reinstall the

application in order to complete the initial database download.

The most annoying piracy protection measures I’ve encountered are related to the cult

British TV shows I enjoy. For several years, the BBC made American fans wait at least a week,

and sometimes longer, to see new episodes of Doctor Who. This resulted in the series once

holding the dubious distinction of being the most illegally downloaded program in the world.

However, there’s a happy, free-market ending to this tale. In 2011, the BBC, in attempt to curb

illegal downloading, decided to give American fans what they wanted: They began broadcasting

4

NET NEUTRALITY

Doctor Who episodes stateside on the same day the episodes aired in the UK (Ulaby, 2011). Not

surprisingly, illegal downloads plummeted, and the BBC has continued its same-day-broadcast

practice to this day.

As I have mentioned on the class message board, I am a free market advocate. I am

against the government handing down edicts regarding Net Neutrality and piracy, with no regard

as to the real-world logistics faced by the network engineers who must abide by the edicts. IT

personnel should not be forced to police content for copyright infringement. Among other

problems, such a scenario would cripple—and possibly destroy—sites such as Twitter. While

content producers have the right to protect their intellectual property, they should not have the

right to strong-arm ISP’s and websites into becoming their private security guards. We do not

need more copyright laws; we just need to enforce existing laws, and content providers should be

left to solve their own problems, as the BBC did with Doctor Who.

In his 2010 article addressing Net Neutrality, Mataconis argues that the answer “isn’t

more regulation, but more freedom.” I agree with him. If consumers could choose their ISP’s the

way they choose their grocery stores, payola would be rendered moot. Further, as Mataconis

points out, more competition in the ISP arena would mean more incentive for companies to

develop new technologies regarding bandwidth access and content piracy.

The tech world is in a much better position to deal with bandwidth issues and piracy than

the government. The free market works if it is left alone. Government edicts do not.

5

NET NEUTRALITY

References

Canono, J. (2010, December 21). Net Neutrality’s Little Wars. One Fine Jay. Retrieved from

http://onefinejay.com/2010/12/21/net-neutralitys-little-wars

Glaser, A. (2014, June 6). In Harm's Way: The Dangers of a World Without Net Neutrality.

Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved from

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/harms-way-dangers-world-without-net-neutrality

Karr, T. (2014, April 25). FCC Proposal for a Payola Internet Would End Net Neutrality.

FreePress.net. Retrieved from http://www.freepress.net/press-release/106177/fcc-

proposal-payola-internet-would-end-net-neutrality

Marks, G. (2014, November 24). Netflix and YouTube Now Consume 50% Of The Internet As

The Argument For Net Neutrality Weakens. Forbes. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/11/24/netflix-and-youtube-now-

consume-50-of-the-internet-as-the-argument-for-net-neutrality-weakens/

Mataconis, D. (2010, December 22). No, Net Neutrality Is Not A Government Takeover Of The

Internet. Outside the Beltway. Retrieved from http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-net-

neutrality-is-not-a-government-takeover-of-the-internet/

Siegelbaum, D. (2014, April 28). Could new net neutrality rules fuel piracy? BBC News.

Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27161270

Sutton, M. (2015, January 22). Transparency is Necessary to Ensure the Copyright Industry

Won't Sneak Policies Through the Back Door. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved

from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/transparency-necessary-ensure-copyright-

industry-wont-sneak-policies-through-back

Ulaby, N. (2011, April 22). A New 'Doctor Who' Tries To Make Peace With Its Impatient

6

NET NEUTRALITY

Stateside Fans. NPR. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/04/22/135607005/a-new-doctor-who-tries-to-

make-peace-with-its-impatient-stateside-fans

7