Internet Neutrality

The question (and apologies to the camerman whose name I didn't get for both not getting his name, and now paraphrasing his question) was this:

If a community builds a bridge, and charges a toll to cross that bridge, how would the principle of net neutrality apply?

My answer:

Imagine that the bridge is separated into lanes, each of which has a tollbooth. By design, and as the Internet is now, you may change lanes to the tollbooth with the shortest line so that your car gets through as fast as possible. In that way, all toll lines queue up equally depending on the overall amount of traffic on the road. Everyone is on equal footing; no one gets through any faster than anyone else: If there's a traffic jam, everyone is affected equally. That's 'Net Neutrality.

However, the legislation proposed by Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska (Senate Bill S.2686) would allow ISP's to set up special lanes on the bridge for people going to, say, Disneyland versus anywhere else (like a National Park for example). Disneyland has deep pockets, so they can pay the bridge owners a fee to keep lanes open to make sure that cars heading their way get through. So when car "A" heading for Disneyland hits the bridge, it uses the Disneyland lane, pays a reduced toll and carries on.

Car "B", headed for a National Park, has to use the "general use" lanes, which are always crowded and jammed up, and have a higher toll to boot. So getting to their non-subsidized location will take longer and cost more, or may not be feasible at all due to the heavy traffic.

Meanwhile, the cars headed to Disneyland are zipping along just fine in the next lanes. Now think what will happen to the National Park system when no one can get to the parks because the bridges are all full of people going to Disneyland! Disneyland is loving it, while the National Parks slowly go bankrupt.

The analogy is that the bridge is like your Internet connection: You can pay to pass as many cars on as many lanes as you want (analogous to the tiered service levels offered by many ISPs). The issue arises when the bridge owners, or worse, the destinations, start making it less likely for drivers to go to the National Parks because the parks don't pay the bridge owners some fee to open lanes and reduce the tolls charged for cars going to their destination.

And it actually gets worse: If there's a sudden inflow of cars heading for Disneyland, more lanes on the bridge will be immediately marked for Disneyland, and Taken Away from the drivers heading to non-'sponsored' destinations, further shutting out those destinations that don't have the budget to pay the bridge owners their basically extortionary fees.

To complete the analogy, the National Park is like the small businesses and independant media outlets here in Vermont: With 'Net Neutrality, they are on a level playing field with any of the big sites and/ or companies out there. Without 'Net Neutrality, they're going to have a very hard time staying online or in business.

Finally, imagine for a moment that 'Net Neutrality is taken away, and there's a major world event taking place. Imagine that Fox News has paid the "toll" to get extra lanes and preferential treatment on the 'net. While the even is taking place, imagine trying to get to CNN.com or even a more local, independant media outlet (like WGDR. What do you think the chances are of your getting through with the mass of traffic destined to Fox News taking up all the 'lanes'?

Learn more about net neutrality and act up by checking out these links:

*SaveTheInternet.com
*Vermont Senators on SaveTheInternet.com
*YouTube video of the rally on 31 August I'm the tall guy in the black Polo shirt :)
* Finally, Thanks a ton to MoveOn.org for getting the petition together and coordinating the delivery!