Two things:
- I am going to keep this very brief
- I am going to avoid using analogies that you may have read elsewhere already.
There are three dimensions to neutrality, and depending on which dimension one is focussing on, one can be either arguing for Net Neutrality or against it.
The three dimensions are:
- Cost
- Access
- Speed
The cost neutrality of Internet is expecting that access to all content on the Internet comes at the same cost, i.e. whether a customer consumes 100MB of data on a shopping site, or a streaming video site, the cost to the customer for those 100MB will remain the same.
Access neutrality of Internet is expecting that access to all content on the Internet is equal for customers, i.e. whether a customer wants to access a shopping site, or a streaming video site, the customer can freely do so without any restrictions.
Speed neutrality of Internet is expecting that access to all content on the Internet comes at the same speed, i.e. whether a customer chooses to visit a shopping site, or a streaming video site, the bandwidth and speed available to the customer is the same.
Let us now consider scenarios in which these aforementioned conditions of neutrality may be violated.
A Government decides to subsidize all e-governance websites for its citizens so that citizens visiting these sites will not be charged any money by the ISP for the data they consume on these sites. A shopping site may do the same for its customers who visit their site. On the other hand, an ISP may decide to charge more money for the data consumed on a video streaming website. These are examples of cost neutrality violation.
A government decides to ban access to pornographic websites, so that customers wanting to visit these websites will not have access to them. An ISP may decide to ban access to torrent websites. These are examples of access neutrality violation.
An ISP offers higher speeds to customers who visit a certain shopping website, while offering lower speeds to customers who visit rival shopping websites. This is an example of speed neutrality violation.
If the ISP allows customers to access rival shopping websites at higher speeds, provided they pay a premium for it, then this would violate both cost neutrality and speed neutrality.
While discussing the merits or demerits of Net Neutrality, we need to keep in mind these three dimensions and ensure that we treat each of these neutrality conditions in different ways.
Cost neutrality violation, especially in the form of subsidy offered by the 'destination' websites, and not offered by the ISP, may be acceptable in some cases. However, such violations initiated by the ISPs on an arbitrary basis may cause great heart-burn.
Access neutrality violations are typically determined by the laws and regulations of the country of the customers and ISPs. Violations that are a result of such local laws and only such local laws may be acceptable. A Government may have many reasons to impose restrictions, and some of them may be justified. Such violations, however, if initiated by the ISPs arbitrarily, can seldom be justified.
Speed neutrality violations seem to find less support under all circumstances.
There is however another constraint, and that is the limited bandwidth. Bandwidth is not ever expanding, and requires massive investments to expand. Higher bandwidth causes more people to use high-quality streaming content resulting in more data usage, which can theoretically cause speeds to lower for all customers.
Equate this to availability of roads, which when expanded, attract more people to drive instead of taking up public transport, which leads to congestion and lower speeds. Or, equate it to availability of electricity, abundance of which can encourage people to use more air-conditioners and heaters for longer duration, thereby causing shortage of electricity for everyone across the board.
Of course, one could argue that Utilities can simply raise the per unit usage price to discourage customers from using more electricity, or increase the toll tax on roads to discourage people from driving their own cars. The downside of this is that the hike in prices potentially affects poorer sections of the society, and those who wanted to use these utilities for social purposes.
If hospitals had to pay more for electricity to run life-saving equipment, the cost of medical care would increase, and this would adversely affect many poor people.
The success of the much-famed Jyoti-Gram Yojana implemented by the Government of Gujarat to ensure 24 hours electricity supply throughout the state is essentially based on violation of cost neutrality and access neutrality. Electricity lines are separate for domestic and agricultural purposes and the per unit price of electricity for these two purposes are different. The benefit from such violations is for everyone to see - availability of electricity 24 hours in a day for domestic purposes for everyone in the state.
The debate on Net-neutrality is not a Black or White debate. There are nuances that one needs to consider. We see violations of cost, access, or speed neutrality in the context of other utilities and public goods very often in our lives. Some of them feel justified to us. Internet is yet another public good, much like water, electricity, and land. The laws of neutrality, though ideal, may need to be tweaked in order to ensure its reach and benefits to greater sections of people.
And about my promise of not making this big, or avoiding analogies, well...I lied!
There is however another constraint, and that is the limited bandwidth. Bandwidth is not ever expanding, and requires massive investments to expand. Higher bandwidth causes more people to use high-quality streaming content resulting in more data usage, which can theoretically cause speeds to lower for all customers.
Equate this to availability of roads, which when expanded, attract more people to drive instead of taking up public transport, which leads to congestion and lower speeds. Or, equate it to availability of electricity, abundance of which can encourage people to use more air-conditioners and heaters for longer duration, thereby causing shortage of electricity for everyone across the board.
Of course, one could argue that Utilities can simply raise the per unit usage price to discourage customers from using more electricity, or increase the toll tax on roads to discourage people from driving their own cars. The downside of this is that the hike in prices potentially affects poorer sections of the society, and those who wanted to use these utilities for social purposes.
If hospitals had to pay more for electricity to run life-saving equipment, the cost of medical care would increase, and this would adversely affect many poor people.
The success of the much-famed Jyoti-Gram Yojana implemented by the Government of Gujarat to ensure 24 hours electricity supply throughout the state is essentially based on violation of cost neutrality and access neutrality. Electricity lines are separate for domestic and agricultural purposes and the per unit price of electricity for these two purposes are different. The benefit from such violations is for everyone to see - availability of electricity 24 hours in a day for domestic purposes for everyone in the state.
The debate on Net-neutrality is not a Black or White debate. There are nuances that one needs to consider. We see violations of cost, access, or speed neutrality in the context of other utilities and public goods very often in our lives. Some of them feel justified to us. Internet is yet another public good, much like water, electricity, and land. The laws of neutrality, though ideal, may need to be tweaked in order to ensure its reach and benefits to greater sections of people.
And about my promise of not making this big, or avoiding analogies, well...I lied!
