What is Net Neutrality? Definition and Rulings

Net Neutrality has been a subject of debate recently, and probably people are still debating the new rules that emerged around May 15, 2014. This post explains what is Net Neutrality really about in simple terms, why is it important, pros and cons, how it affects people trying something on the Internet and the new petitions and, the rules and rulings that have been brought in for debate, along with an example or two. I used the word “trying” as it intends to cover end-users, websites, and even Internet-based startups.

what-is-net-neutrality

What is Net Neutrality – Definition

The original meaning of net neutrality says that all the Internet traffic (data) should be treated as equal and no data packets of a certain origin should be favored over other data traveling on the Internet. In other words, all the websites on the Internet should be working at the same average speed provided by your ISP.

Problems began when some ISPs decided that they should charge extra for websites that want to provide a smoother experience to their subscribers. These charges are then passed on to the end-users by the websites. Then there are free websites who may not be able to pay to the ISPs and therefore will be slower on the Internet.

Another important example is that a well-established e-commerce store will pay the ISP and will load faster while another e-commerce store that sells less may not be able to load that fast. That would create a bias towards the store which loads faster and thereby luring off the customers of the average speed store.

Net Neutrality – What’s Actually Happening?

There have been cases where the ISPs were deliberately slowing up data from popular websites to extract money from those sites. Netflix, for example, is a video streaming site. And it pays a good amount of money to different ISPs so that users can watch the videos without interruptions due to buffering, etc.

Before this year’s debate, there was a lawsuit on Comcast that it was slowing down Netflix to promote its own paid videos. Since local videos on cable are faster than the one streaming from the Internet, most people would browse Comcast’s own library to rent a video rather than checking into Netflix or similar sites.

According to Tech Radar,

“ISPs are receiving money from their subscribers to access the internet, including Netflix. Now they’re receiving money from Netflix to access those same customers.”

If you read the above carefully, you will automatically understand that Netflix will pass on those extra charges for smooth viewing (more bandwidth), to its customers.

Who Suffers?

Among the first to suffer, are the end users, of course. Their subscription charges increase, so they have to pay more to get the same content they used to get earlier at lower rates.

This type of paid streaming is especially harmful to websites that are still struggling to survive. The newcomers and startups will find it hard to find a place among the already existing competition. Just because they cannot afford to pay extra, their sites will be slow. And in case they pay up and pass on the charges to customers (end users), their turnover is affected. Suppose someone has a good idea of an alternative to Facebook. And they implement it free of cost. Since Facebook is able to pay, it gets better speed while the startup suffers because it cannot pay the ISPs.

Net Neutrality rulings

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) came up with three rules that apply to all the ISPs.

The first rule is about transparency. All ISPs will have to maintain records and publish a performance report every few months. This performance report will have all information about their traffic, any irregularities on behalf of ISPs or underlying cable companies used by ISP to communicate data, and blocking of any content or charging any website for faster bandwidth.

The second rule is about not blocking conditions unlawfully. It may be said that a particular website is blocked upon request from the government, but that too will be under public scrutiny as to why the need came up to block the site. Another aspect is taking money from a site to block its competitors or the ISP’s own competitors.

The third rule is a little abstract as its meaning cannot be decoded properly. It says ISPs cannot slow down the Internet speed if a user is paying for higher speeds. Sometimes, some ISPs slow down websites as they wish to maintain balance among the different bandwidths they use for communications (data traveling). And this is said to “commercially unreasonable”. It is not clear as to how many falls in the speed of Internet would be ‘commercially unreasonable’ and hence should provide equal importance to all types of Internet packages. ISPs have different packages offering different speeds. It will not be in compliance with the rule if the ISP slows down lower package holders to provide better speed to higher speed package holders.

Future of Net Neutrality

The Internet activists and free speech supporters are up in arms against the FCC and ISPs. They want Net Neutrality to be maintained at all costs. They believe the above rules can easily be breached and transparency won’t be of much help in providing a proper service. A good section of these activists wants Internet to be classified as “public utility” so that the government may use Municipal wireless or its own broadband networks. The use of broadband depends mostly on cable lines and also on wireless. The Municipal wireless is already there as an alternative to costly ISPs. Once the Internet is classified as a public utility, there is less chance that the ISPs can do to tamper with the speeds as people can switch to government broadband.

UPDATE: In Dec 2017, the US FCC decided to kill Net Neytrality. Let us see what the future holds now…

Heard of Internet Of Things?

Posted by on , in Category General with Tags
Arun Kumar is a Microsoft MVP alumnus, obsessed with technology, especially the Internet. He deals with the multimedia content needs of training and corporate houses. Follow him on Twitter @PowercutIN

9 Comments

  1. 1stkorean

    Thank You for providing the explain of Net Neutrality

  2. I agree it is more clear to me now, thank you

  3. Dan

    On the third rule you said is hard to decode; perhaps this will provide example of how ISPs can slow down those paying for higher speed, and how arbitrary new “rules” can be.

    I’m in the USA Pacific NW, using a major ISP (one in the headlines for multi-billion merger offers). Kind of stuck due to geography, I’ve said a year or so ago this ISP “requires” modems to have 3 ports respond “closed” rather than stealth; it also usually has no customer usage meters of its own at account pages; it claims it has no cap on unlimited high speed residential broadband; it also says, however, that if one exceeds 280GB in one month it will (currently) charge $10USD for each 50GB or fraction thereof over 280GB used in one month. Considering things like Netflix, YouTube, games, paying over $100USD/month for “no limits” in the first place sounds good…until “unofficial” caps get on your bill. As if this weren’t enough, though you are billed for high speed, one finds the service with or without extra charges is proxied by the ISP, with upload speeds capped at just under 6MB/minute by such proxy. Try Level3, OpenDNS, or myriad other DNS servers on your PC…6MB/minute upload, period. Of course, download speed is usually around 30MB/minute.

    In the era of growing mobile/work-at-home employees, most companies requiring at least 10MB/minute upload speed, not only does my ISP have interesting router/modem needs, and cap service sold as unlimited, it further requires at-will corporate work-at-home employees to purchase even higher-cost business grade service to attain 10MB/minute or better upload speed. Even if their service already is unlimited, even if with work-at-home and personal combined they never approach 280GB monthly usage.

    To my inquiry and knowledge, all of this is within the bounds of the touchy-feely abstract third relevant rule, per the FCC and local State officials. Thus, you are quite correct to believe it’s not clear what “commercially unreasonable” means. I don’t know how it is in other lands, but in the USA the only consistency seems to be ask a question, get treated like a rubber ball tethered to a paddle being rapidly fanned, and expect to hear there’s got to be SOME reason you owe the paddler more and more money. Thanks for a great story, and cheers!

  4. Arun Kumar

    Thank you, for sharing your experience. This should assist others in understanding the issue better. 🙂

  5. Dan

    You’re most welcome! And just to be clear, no…this isn’t ISP “throttling” in response to torrents or some such, nor in response to being some Tor-like exit/relay node or user; pay more, broadband gets faster; the firmware in modem will allow stealthing of ports 25, 80, 443 of modem, but only at “custom” options, which then requires you have three arbitrary ports in the “1000” range report closed…so any hacker or botnetter with a record of past-infected PCs can have joy of router ping-back and hope of drilling further into such PC. Again, apparently A-OK with powers that be (of course, I make the PC as firewall ironclad as it can be while keeping all its own ports stealthed). That’s all I can say, thanks again!

  6. Michael Kenward

    Definition!

    Headlines are easy to miss when you proofread.

  7. Arun Kumar

    Oh. I just saw it. Will notify the editor to change it. Thank you for spotting it. 🙂

  8. Robbie

    February 17, 2015

    Federal Communications Commission
    Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov
    Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov
    Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov
    Commissioner Ajit Pai: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov
    Commissioner Michael O’Rielly: Mike.O’Rielly@fcc.gov

    Your Name Here
    Your Address Here
    You have more clout if you are a presumptive voter

    Dear Federal Communications Commission:

    Please do not reclassify the internet to telecommunications. The internet is firstly an information service and the good it is doing must be allowed to continue unencumbered.

    The internet, in its current classification, is the greatestequalizer of scientific, social, business, and cultural information and knowledge of all time. As the internet exists today it is the greatest man made
    worldwide equalizer of humanity on the earth. It is a source of freedom through knowledge and education.

    The wisdom of the FCC is being tested by the temptation to nudge this phenomenon into failure by strangling it under the guise of business regulation. By reclassifying theinternet to manage its lesser telecommunications aspects the commercialization of the internet will be complete; and humanity will lose this source of equalization and freedom.

    The internet, classified as an information service, is the greatest information service of all time. Government intrusion will harm this source of freedom and personal empowerment.

    Respectfully,

    Your Name Here
    Your Address Here

    cc: Honerable (your senator)
    Honerable (yoursenator)
    Honerable (yourcongressman)

  9. Mathematical certainty

    Arun Kumar, well done!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


1 + 8 =