Net neutrality is the principle that broadband providers should not be able to discriminate between users of their networks via higher speeds or prioritized access. In recent years, this seemingly mundane technical issue has been catapulted from the murky depths of telecom regulation into the center of a blazing national spotlight. By early 2007, the issue had ignited a political firestorm, attracting the support of groups as varied as MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition, simultaneously sparking YouTube campaigns, street protests, and media coverage that reached improbable heights.

But as quickly as it had risen in prominence, the issue fell right back to obscurity. After several false starts in Congress and the FCC, including a bill that failed by a single vote in the Senate Commerce Committee, legislative progress on the subject is now completely stalled. Indeed, some observers have already begun conducting post-mortems of what they call a “dead” issue. But these obituaries are as premature. Although advocates have yet to produce a tangible threat to the “neutral internet,” powerful backers and a bright media spotlight suggest the issue is here to stay.

The Stakes
According to its advocates, net neutrality would protect an Internet gravely at risk. Without regulations, they argue, broadband providers would slow down access to websites that refused to pay a hefty fee, boosting their own revenues at the expense of the end user and making it harder for future Internet companies to get their start. Craig Aaron, Director of Communications of Free Press and SaveTheInternet.com, warns, “We should save the chance for individuals to start the next Google, the next eBay.” Others worry that these companies might even block access completely to sites they found objectionable. While these fears have yet to come true, there’s certainly a historical precedent for network discrimination: as early as the 1880’s, telephone callers asking the operator to be connected to a specific company might be diverted to a competitor should the latter financially – and secretly –compensate the operator.

More recently, Verizon made headlines by blocking the pro-choice group NARAL from sending text messages to its users. And in early August, taking advantage of its control of the bandwidth, AT&T suppressed Pearl Jam’s anti-Bush lyrics from a performance streamed on the Web. But text messaging and video censoring are peripheral issues, and neither represents a direct attack on the concept of a neutral internet, something that has existed by default since the web’s invention nearly two decades ago. Indeed, there is still no known example in the United States of the sort of discrimination that net neutrality advocates fear.

A Flimsy Foundation
This argument reveals the key problem with net neutrality as an issue: it’s a completely theoretical debate. Its supporters have cast the controversy as an epic battle for the future of cyberspace, but so far no enemy has arrived at the gates, and not a single shot has been fired. C. Lincoln “Link” Hoewing, an assistant vice president at Verizon Communications, said “I’m getting tired of it...We’ve never done anything that I know to interfere with anyone’s traffic.” Without a clear, tangible impact, it’s no surprise that a hypothetical discussion over what might happen has failed to generate overwhelming political will. And with an opponent as powerful and well-connected as the telecommunications industry, nothing less will suffice.

Considering its handicaps—an uninformed public, powerful foes, and no preexisting interest groups—the real surprise may be that an issue as esoteric and distant as net neutrality even made it into the news at all. That it did is a testament to the energy of the groups aligned in its favor and to the resources of the major backers—including Google, Apple, and Microsoft—willing to pay the bills for lobbying and advertising. While recent failures on the legislative front are serious blows, they hardly signal the “death” of the issue. Instead, the fact that votes are being held at all—and coming remarkably close—is the real story of net neutrality. Now, every move broadband companies make is under an intense media spotlight, and each step towards network discrimination will likely bring the “dead” issue right back to life again.

That should make the companies think twice about threatening the delicate balance that has existed on the Internet for nearly twenty years. When the danger to the status quo was just hypothetical, it was enough to inspire media scrutiny, grassroots outrage, and a fight that reached all the way to Congress. Imagine what will happen if the threat is ever realized.¨ ]]>http://hprsite.squarespace.com/cyber-sound-and-fury-112007/rss-comments-entry-1373387.xml