A paper for my data communications and networking class discussing net neutrality.

1. Running Head: NET NEUTRALITY
1
Net Neutrality
Teresa J. Rothaar
Wilmington University

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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