Net Neutrality: Who will control the Internet?

In yesterday's article about the subject of Net neutrality, the idea was discussed about the possibility of you paying more than your neighbor Joe for using the Internet. We covered the idea that Joe might not be paying less in money. Rather, he might be using more of the Internet's common pool of performance, one shared by all: its capacity, its bandwidth.

We explored the unpleasant fact that Joe might be stealing your rightful part of this bandwidth. In so doing, Joe might rob you of your ability to send a photo to someone within a reasonable time. He might also deny you the bandwidth you need to log on to Netflix to see a movie. He is a pain in the - forgive the French - bandwidth ass. But why should he care? He is paying about the same to use the Internet bandwidth as you are.

With the first article in mind, let's move to other aspects of this vital issue. Vital, in that 81 percent of America's population will be affected by what is decided in D.C. about Net neutrality.

Much of the confusion about this issue has come about because the media, Congress, and even the FCC have not clearly and consistently identified the different companies who have billions of dollars riding on the FCC rulings. The names and functions of these institutions are summarized below to clarify their roles in supporting you and me... and Joe.

For the remainder of this article, keep in mind these companies have different skin in the game than an individual citizen. Some of them are adamant in wanting to do away with Net neutrality. They want to charge Joe, you, and me for the amount of bandwidth use. Ironically, some of these organizations are fearful that they will also be charged for bandwidth use by other providers. Let's delve into a bit more detail. In so doing, we will address the fundamental issues of Net neutrality.

* The channel provider: Controls the physical media (Such as the local telephone company which owns the telephone wires running through neighborhoods).

* The content provider: Provides the information that is placed on the physical media (Such as Netflix and Facebook).

* The service provider (the Internet Service Provider, ISP): Provides the Internet user with the ability to log-on to the Internet to exchange content. AOL comes to mind, but like many ISPs, AOL is getting into the content business, which leads to one of the key components in the Net neutrality debate.

And here is where it gets dicey:

* The multi-function provider: Provides a combination of the three basic services. An example is Comcast.

The problem facing the FCC and the providers listed above deals with the fact that only so many companies can be a physical channel provider. For example, it makes no sense to lay multiple telephone lines in a neighborhood. Consequently, content providers such as Netflix, Google, and Facebook are dependent on the companies that own the physical links. Of course, so are individual users.

To amplify the 'dicey' nature of this, traditional channel providers, such as Frontier Communications, have evolved to become multi-function providers. Consequently, if a channel provider which owns the wires, cables, and cellphone channels of the Internet also becomes a multi-function provider, the "pure" content providers who do not own physical channels might not be sleeping well at night. After all, the multi-function competitors also own the wires the content providers must use.

Who is to say whether a multi-function provider, such as Comcast, might favor its distribution of movies over that of another movie distributor, such as Netflix? After all, Netflix is forced to use a multi-function provider's channels, as it owns no wires or cables. Netflix might have its video traffic throttled by Comcast, so Comcast's video would be of higher quality.

Mind you, I am not accusing Comcast of this dastardly deed. I am presenting an abstract but apt scenario of one Net neutrality issue.

Given this environment, the company which controls the Internet physical channels has a different opinion about Net neutrality than a company which does not own this media, but uses it.

If Net neutrality is eliminated, end-users will be dependent on the Internet providers described in this article. In one fashion or another, the Internet providers who favor charging for bandwidth usage state that competition will keep prices down and performance high. In the meantime, Uncle Sam is allowing these companies to merge and consolidate, which in my view, is eliminating the very competition they claim will exist in the future.

Nothing in life is simple, including the Net neutrality debate. Let's return to your bandwidth-hogging neighbor. Do you really want to encourage Joe's couch potato habits? Should he not pay his own way? Is he robbing you of your rightful share of the bandwidth? Don't you become a bit irritated when you try to download a picture and it is slow as rush hour traffic because of his 24-hour habit of watching "24?"

In its simplest terms, and using topical jargon, should certain parties be granted 'fast lanes' on the Internet highway? Can others be placed in slow lanes and still receive adequate service to meet their needs? Should the users of the fast lanes pay more than the slow-lane users?

Although it is too soon to make a judgment on what the FCC will do, it appears these questions will be answered in the affirmative. If so, the next question goes to the crux of the Net neutrality debate: Who will control the traffic on these lanes and their associated pricings?

It is a dogfight in relation to the future of the Internet. The rulings of the FCC, Congress, and the courts will be vital to all Internet users. The Internet providers described in this article are lobbying the FCC based on their interests and those of their stockholders. They are not lobbying the FCC based on their interests in the individual citizen. We should be paying attention.

As these issues are argued during the next few months, it is certain the Internet channel, content, and service providers are going to follow that great human tradition: "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is up for grabs."

Uyless Black is an award-winning author who has written many books on computer software and advanced communication technologies. He was a software programmer for the Federal Reserve and a consulting business owner in California and Virginia. He resides in Coeur d'Alene.