Net Nutrality

Net Neutrality has become a very important issue since the first appeals court for the District of Columbia ruled against the Federal Communications Commission in the appeal Comcast filed about the their right to moderate broadband internet traffic on its network in whatever fashion it saw fit. I feel that this ruling was a grave blow against the freedom of thought and expression that the internet makes possible.
Before I can get into the specifics on why I personally feel that anything but net neutrality is wrong I feel that I must correct a number incorrect or wrong facts that have been circling the web about net neutrality and the appeal that has put it in the national spotlight. Here is an example from the Washingtons Posts website. It is an article about Comcast’s appeal to the FCC. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040600742.html
I am going to point out a number of errors in the article. If you would like to read it feel free although it is not required to understand this next portion. The Washington Post article states that the FCC was trying to stop Comcast from “slowing traffic to a popular file-sharing site”. Later in the article they name the site as “the BitTorrent file sharing site”. Both of these claims are wildly inaccurate on propagate misinformation about the situation. It is first important to understand what Bit Torrent is. Bit Torrent if a file transfer protocol designed to move large files. It is basically a way for computers to transfer large files by breaking them into very small pieces and allowing the person downloading the file to pull pieces from many different source locations at once and then to rebuild the completed file once all the pieces have been downloaded. It is important to note that Bit Torrent is not a single piece of software but rather a protocol that is used by hundreds of different pieces of software. Bit Torrent is largely recognized as one of the best protocols for sending files over the internet and as such is used by many companies worldwide. There is no individual bit torrent site as the article makes it sound.
The most misleading section in the article is embodied in the first quote I shared with you. By stating that the FCC was attempting to stop Comcast from “slowing traffic to a popular file-sharing site” the author of this article is making a twofold attack on the FCC’s credibility. Firstly, by stating that the site traffic is being slowed to is a “file-sharing” site they make it sound like the FCC is coming out in defense of a site that is used for illegal purposes. “file-sharing” is a term that is largely associated with illegality in the media. Secondly, by stating that Comcast is doing this to only one site makes it sound like the FCC is coming out in defense of one lowly site that’s only having their traffic slowed.
So what was the actually situation like? In late 2007 many Comcast users began to notice some irregularities in their internet traffic. Several independent tests were ran and it was determined that Comcast was injecting false packets to prematurely end bit-torrent traffic on their networks. As already stated bit torrent works by breaking a file that needs to be sent into hundreds of little pieces and sending them. This means that eventually a piece has to be sent that says “alright I’m the last one you have the whole file”. What Comcast was doing was generating these false end packets and sending them to computers engaged in bit torrent activity thereby stopping that activity before the file was done transferring. This was reported to the FCC who decided that intentionally interrupting traffic based solely on the type of traffic it was overstepping their bounds. It has been estimated that some 40 percent of internet traffic is files being transferred using the bit torrent protocol. This means that Comcast was intentionally interrupting a very large amount of the traffic on their networks. A in-depth report of the tests can be found here: http://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-affair
Clearly this is a far different picture of Comcast’s activity then the article paints. Clearly Comcast’s actions were underhanded and the medias inaccurate reporting of the issue is hurting both the FCC’s credibility and public opinion of an important file transfer protocol. However this raises two very important questions, firstly why did Comcast want to block this traffic if it was not illegal, and if what Comcast did was so underhanded why did the first district court of appeals rule in their favor?
To address the first question, why did Comcast want to block this traffic if it was not illegal, we need to talk a little more about the internet. The internet is a massive number of computers and server connected by a global network of transfer lines. Just like the roadways that spider webs the United States, the transfer lines connecting all the computers and servers have a finite capacity for data transfer. Once maximum capacity is reached user’s data is cued to wait its turn for transfer and their internet speed decreases. If the section of the internet lines that Comcast controls become bogged down with too much traffic they have two choices. They can start cutting traffic or start building additional infrastructure to support the growing internet. Building additional infrastructure is very costly while cutting traffic is practically free. Bit Torrent which makes up the largest percentage of internet traffic makes an easy target. I would be remiss if I did not mention that Bit Torrent is also used by some people to transfer bootlegged or pirated software. Perhaps because of its diminished reputation Comcast felt that no one could object to them obstructing this traffic. In my mind this is somewhat like saying “Because roads are the primary way for stolen goods to be transferred in the United States they should be considered decidedly criminal and anyone using them is subject to treatment as a criminal.”
This brings us to our second question, if what Comcast did was so underhanded why did the first district court of appeals rule in their favor? This simple explanation is that the way the telecommunications act of 1996 is written supports Comcast’s claim that it’s their network and they can damn well do what they please. Because internet is not considered essential the FCC only has a loose jurisdiction over it. Clearly the act might be a little out of date. An update to it was proposed in 2005 but has yet to make its way through to approval and does not address the net neutrality issue.
So now that you are up to date on net neutrality let me say my piece on it. The internet is the greatest thing humanity has ever crated. It organizes quantities of data almost unfathomable. It encompasses most of the knowledge amassed by humanity. To allow this to be sliced up into the domains of different companies each trying to squeeze every penny possible out of it for the least cost would be a tragedy. Most other countries have recognized what an amazing thing the internet is and have spent large amounts of government funds to improve the information infrastructure in their countries. There are some notable acceptations to this rule. Australia has allowed internet service providers to carve up their country into tiny internet kingdoms, where traffic is limited based on which companies are willing to give the ISP’s the most cash. I don’t know about you but the internet is where I go when I am looking for answers. One question will lead to the next and I will spend hours reading and watching and learning, not for a project or assignment but because learning is amazing and it betters me as a person. I don’t want what I learn to be decided by the highest bidder. The internet must remain free and I trust my government to create and enforce laws using the least force required and to help fund the expansion and improvement of internet infrastructure in this country.