Conclusion

Well this is my last post on the subject matter of Net Neutrality. Over the short month and a half of researching this topic I have learned a great deal of information that if not for this project I never would have even bother to look. Net Neutrality as we currently speak is simply what we do everyday. We click on any browser we like and we explore the Internet to our hearts content. No regulation or restriction that we have to abide by, just the speed of our connection of course. The reason why the Internet has boomed and blossomed into such a beautiful thing is because of the openness that it presents by giving us the freedom to do so as we so choose. Of course in other countries there are different restrictions on the content you can access. Such as Vietnam blocking social media sites like facebook. But currently we, the US, do not face such a thing. If Net Neutrality were to be no longer neutral then we would face problems like these where we are restricted by what we can access and how we would like to access them, i.e. browsers.

My research has showed me that this whole topic will change how we interact in the near future. The FCC is holding a vote this up coming December 21, 2010 to decide on the Net Neutrality proposals. Basically, our Internet will be the same for those wired but those wireless like our cell phones will under go some different alterations, such as an increase in our monthly bill depending on how much usage we consume. There will no longer be the “unlimited” data plans that allow everyone to consume as much as we want and congest everything up. This is basically like the gasoline situation where you jack up the price and everyone will pay because they have to. There isn’t an alternative right now that would help elevate the payments that some “data hogs” must now pay.

The Pros and Cons of this Net Neutrality are kind of understandable if you step away for a second and look at it rationally. Of course having the Internet regulated will decrease the amount of viruses and malicious acts that occur but do you really think McAfee or Norton will really want that to disappear? Without those they will be out of a job because you never ever want to bite the hands that feed you. And the obvious con with be all the restriction that would be impose on the individuals. Worst-case scenario we are looking at the Internet as television where you have to pay to get a certain package. Like $40 gets you Google but you need $60 in order to gain access to Yahoo. And I am more than positive no one wants that because then you will lose the essence of why the Internet is so great to begin with. The openness and readily available information that one can access is a major turn on. That’s why the libraries are slowly dying off one by one.

I went into this wondering why no one knew more about this situation and the more I read the more I understood why. The reason why this isn’t getting nay much play in the media realm is because it doesn't have to. I conducted a survey that just proved that not a lot of people have even the slightest clue what Net Neutrality is or even the Google and Verizon proposal. Our Internet will stay the same, for now, and the only thing that will change is the increase in our monthly payment. But they always have increases in monthly bill because they know we will pay for them.

At the end of the day we will pay for the consumption because that is what we want to have. The Google Verizon pact will just make it so that you have to pay to get more. Some how down the line I do believe that there will be a problem like the Comcast situation again. It’s inevitable. The ISPs will want control and some say over the content they provide and we will still want open access. This is a very fluid situation and can change all the time. Nothing for sure can be set in stone except the fact that things will change.

The Interview

So I was finally able to interview Declan McCullagh today. I had several questions that I wanted to have him answer and give his insight on. The interview in my eyes was a success. It gave me an insight on what truly goes on and how things operate. I asked him why isn't this Net Neutrality thing a bigger issue or even bigger in the media considering the things being proposed. The survey I conducted showed less than 20% knew what I was talking about. His answer was very simple really. The reason why there isn't much media attention is because people are going to report Net Neutrality when there is a violation that has occurred. For instance, he referenced the Comcast issue that happened several years ago. I guess he has a point because not every single detail is discussed in the news only those that would sell copies or get a reaction.

The next question that I had for Mr. McCullagh, was what does the FCC actually vote on. I understood the proposal and what the Chairman wanted to do but I didn't really understand what do they do during this process. I wanted to get an insight on what happens. He told me it's the same voting style as any other vote and such. From what I gathered in his opinion this is a done deal. There isn't really anything to vote on. They are having this vote just to make it final.

The last question I asked him was why are there now going to be different regulations for Wireless vs. Wired. Is it just the same thing? They both provide internet access? He explained that there are different infrastructures for both situations. Obviously, fiber optic cables that are wired are going to be able to provide more access. Wireless is limited because cell phone towers can not be propped up every where the telecommunication companies pleases. If they were able to just prop up cell towers where-ever than we wouldn't be having this problem. The only problem is that now people are going to have to pay more for the usage that they amount on their iPhone and other smart-phones. The proposal states that the providers can't block or restrict access to web content.

I thank Mr. Declan McCullagh for answering the questions I had about Net Neutrality. It gave me a better idea of the situation at hand.

A Little More Insight

After reading the comments by David Farber, I had a question that I wanted some extra insight on. I reached out to a professor at The University of Arizona. I asked Professor Hsinchun Chen, "When dealing with Net Neutrality some against it raises the question of if the Internet was regulated by the service providers it would decrease the numbers of viruses and spyware and malicious acts due to the fact that they as in the providers would be able to block the user from gaining access to any harmful content. Is that true? Can they get rid of viruses and things of those nature if the ISPs were allowed to block certain applications?" His response was as follows:

I don’t think viruses and such vices are technical problems in nature. The problem lies in jurisdictional boundary, international laws, and security ecosystem. International law enforcement agencies (e.g., Interpol) are not sophisticated enough. Most security-related companies (e.g., Microsoft, McAfee, Symantec) do not have incentives to address these vices which may hurt their profits. ISP filtering would be ad hoc since not all will have the same level of sophistication as the security firms.

This makes a lot of sense. Why bite the hands that feed you. Norton and McAfee really don't have incentives to address the vices because if those are gone they won't have a company anymore.

Going to be interviewing Declan McCullagh tomorrow. Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET, which is part of CBS Corporation. Previously he was a senior correspondent for CBS News' Web site. He became the chief political correspondent for CNET News in 2002 and lives in the San Francisco area after spending over a decade in Washington, DC.

An award-winning journalist, McCullagh writes and speaks frequently about technology, law, and politics. From 1998 to 2002, he was Wired's Washington bureau chief. Previously he was a reporter for Time Magazine, Time Digital Daily, and The Netly News, as well as a correspondent for HotWired. McCullagh previously wrote for the Taking Liberties section of CBS News' Web site, the successor to a weekly column he started in October 2008 titled Other People's Money.

Net Neutrality Matters to Movie and Music Fans

Finally found an amazing definition and explanation of Net Neutrality. This is such a hard topic to explain without leaving everyone in confusion. Ryan Singel is a staff writer for Wired and in this article is interviewed and takes questions from callers into the NPR forum.

Personally tried to call in but had no luck.

Mr. SINGEL: It's a very complicated term, but essentially, there's a few principles, which is one, the Internet should be open and free. So people should be able to use the devices, the services, the application, the browser of their choice, and they should be able to have a choice between ISPs. And one of the other points is that ISPs, you know, should not be choosing winners and losers on the Internet, so they should not be choosing that Hulu will stream for free but NetFlix will cost you more.

Read on at the link provided above. Very good read if you are still a little iffy about this problem.

Get Your Popcorn Ready

The Federal Communications Commission is set to finally vote on rules this month that will keep the Internet open, but the fight may continue as neither side in the Net
neutrality debate is expected to be completely satisfied with the outcome. According to Marguerite Reardon of cnet, Chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, has set a date for December 21.

Genachowski said during his speech that the proposal will allow broadband providers to impose usage-based charges so that customers using more bandwidth would get charged more than customers using less. The FCC will also allow providers to experiment with offering specialized services that could provide higher-quality access to consumers rather than sending applications and content over the public Internet.

Broadband providers will also be required to justify why these services require dedicated bandwidth rather than being delivered over the public Internet. And broadband companies cannot discriminate against traffic on the public Internet in favor of their own services or their customers' premium services.

The new proposal will also treat wireless networks differently than wired networks with respect to Net neutrality. Wired broadband providers will be "prohibited from blocking lawful content, applications, services and the connection of nonharmful devices to the network," and they will be subject to transparency requirements as to how their networks are managed.

Wireless service providers will also be subject to the transparency requirement. And they will also not be able to block or degrade most traffic, such as Web sites and certain applications. But Genachowski said he recognizes "differences between fixed and mobile broadband," and therefore believes the rules should be more flexible for wireless.

The new proposal is not likely to satisfy either side in the debate. Broadband providers are likely to still find some of the provisions too restrictive. Some companies have suggested that Congress should write new rules and make them law rather than having the FCC handle it. Consumer groups are also not likely to be satisfied with the outcome, because they were looking for the FCC to do more.

However these new proposals are met with some opposition. As reported by npr, "No one was particularly happy with what the FCC chairman is proposing. But that doesn't mean it's not the right answer," says Kevin Werbach, professor at the Wharton School, and a former technology consultant to the Obama administration.

I guess we just have to wait and see what happens at the end of this month.