Net neutrality - as precious as democracy and free speech so don't let the British Government kill it

Speaking recently, albeit briefly, at the Intellect meeting of Group Chairs, my topic was UK digital infrastructure and its criticality in respect to our economy, our society and our environment; and how net neutrality is an essential characteristic of this infrastructure in these respects.

Back in the 1960s, some scientists and engineers were just putting the groundwork in place for the basic protocols underpinning the Internet as we know it today... TCP/IP.

These people had no foresight of Internet enabled innovations and services such as Wikipedia, Skype, Facebook, iPlayer, instant messenger, email, Twitter, etc. etc. etc. Or indeed, the whole World Wide Web itself! But they had the considerable wisdom to keep the protocol simple and keep the intelligence at the edge of the network so such innovations could be built on top.

The phrase "Net Neutrality" describes the freedom Internet users have traditionally enjoyed from third party constraints on the websites they can visit, the services they can use and the equipment they can attach to the network. It also precludes third party degradation of one type of service over another (such as might tempt an ISP for commercial gain).

It should be said that not all Internet users benefit from net neutrality. When I was in Dubai recently for example, sites as inocuous (in my eyes) as Flickr were blocked. But one would hope Western Europe would attribute some of the incredible success of the Internet to the founding principles including net neutrality. Indeed, the Internet has blossomed beautifully without government intervention.

But it appears the British Government wishes to kill net neutrality, and I for one think this is an appalling development. The issue has just been 'slashdotted' here describing how a French lobby group has highlighted our Government's proposed changes to the EU Telecoms Package. And Cory Doctorow's article in The Guardian on the references to the death of net neutrality in the recent Digital Britain report is well worth a read.

Many people are rightly vocal about maintaining the right of every Briton to participate in a democratic process and enjoy freedom of speech even when such rights are used by some to convey ideas many would rather they didn't. But we protect these rights because such rights define who we are as a nation.

Net neutrality is, I believe, an extension of these principles, and we need to make this clear to our political decision makers. I don't know whether they understand what they are doing but plough on regardless, or whether they think they do but don't quite appreciate the full ramifications. You may hear the argument that killing net neutrality is essential to drive investment in next generation access, but there are alternative approaches to achieving this end, and I for one would rather live with slower but neutral connectivity.

Ask yourself if you'd like to live in one of those countries that forgoes democracy and freedom of speech for the "wider good".

Comments on this post

Add your comment

Your response to "Net neutrality - as precious as democracy and free speech so don't let the British Government kill it":

1. At 11 Mar 2009 10:45, Antony Walker wrote:

An impassioned post, but would the UK's proposed amendments on net neutrality really lead to the kind of dystopian vision that you suggest? The Wharton Institute recently voted broadband internet as the most inmportant innovation of the last 30 years. Why bother with Digital Britain at all, if the plan is to throttle innovation by designating ISPs as the technology gate keeps of the 21st Century? Is this really the intended or unintended consequence of what is being proposed?

The net neutrality debate isn't about a binary choice. It is simply about whether there is a need for additional legislation to hard wire in a requirement which has never existed in the past. The UK's position is both liberal and pragmatic. To forbear from regulation but to remain vigilent for any practices or developments that are clearly counter to the interests or the wider economy. Competition in the market for fixed and mobile connectivity will act as a natural constraint on the behaviour of ISPs. However,should any evidence of harm emerge, then the regulator or the government would remain free to step in, and if there was real evidence that innovation was being stifled in the way that you suggest, government would not hesitate to do so, given the importance of the internet as an engine for innovation and growth across the economy.

This may seem an outdated view at a time when regulation of financial markets has clearly failed, however, competitive markets, vigilent regulators, transparent services, a free press and active and engaged consumers should mean that the internet will continue to survive and thrive without net neutrality legislation. Should evidence emerge to the contrary, then governemts and regulators will not hesitate to step in.
2. At 11 Mar 2009 11:33, Philip Sheldrake wrote:

Antony,

HDTV is 2 megapixels, but for some reason we think we need phone cameras to have 10! People like simple numbers, yet I believe we are over-emphasising bandwidth at the expense of more important principles.

You ask if designating ISPs as the gate keepers will have a detrimental affect on a modern, open society such as ours, with a free press to keep a beady. My answer is to point you to the debacle over cable in the US, and the poor state of affairs in Canada that Cory Doctorow nods to in the article I linked to above. My answer is to point you to recent murmerings from Australian politicians looking to ISPs to filter out political points of view incompatible with their own. My answer is to point you to the fantastic decade and a half we have witnessed since the World Wide Web was born, which didn't require the British Government's implicit or explicit acceptance of either net neutrality or net bias.

Now, however, if commercial interest wishes to ride roughshod over the basic tenets of the Internet, it is incumbent on our generation to continue to treasure and secure the legacy.

Moreover, I do not share your faith in our ability to get net-bias withdrawn should we have encouraged it in the first place but then turns out to be unnecessary. Look at the difficulty the US is having for example. We're moving in this direction because entrenched commercial interests have suggested it would be good for us, and the same persuasive power will always be there. It's ironic that just as the US is waking up to this issue and wondering how to go through the pain of reversing this out, we're sleepwalking into it.

Lastly, your last paragraph refers to "net neutrality legislation". I don't believe we need net neutrality legislation either, but equally I obviously don't believe our legislative and regulative bodies should be pro net-bias. Rather, they should be amongst the first to point out to business and the electorate the inherent risks of implicitly anointing commercial entities as our gatekeepers on the world.
3. At 13 Mar 2009 11:25, mike kiely wrote:

I blogged last week on the Norwegian regulators (NPT) to move to publish a set of Net Neutrality principles. I have been busy suggesting these or a variation be included in the final Digital Britain report.

Having read the UK ammendments, it would seem sensible that this sort of variation suggested should be allowed. But they do mark a variation from an Open Internet.

The principles of an Open INternet and Net neutraliry need to be published in the final Digital Britain report. Once in place the UK ammendments then have a context.

Without a published set of principles (not legislation) then the perception will arise, that bit carrier can interfere with your traffic without being transparent.

The ammendment talks of transparency, but there is no real transparency at present, just propaganda on average speeds, and as we know there is no truth in averages.

We need the principles for one other reason. Digital Britain calls for a USO for Broadband. A USO cannot be built without the fundamental principles of open ness and neutrality being declared. Once in place the variation suggested in the Ammendments can be accommodated as the services will be labelled correctly.

Without the principles there is no common reference point.

This comment refers to a later version of the text.
4. At 13 Mar 2009 15:46, Philip Sheldrake wrote:

Great idea Mike. For anyone looking for Mike's post, here's a link... http://tinyurl.com/bv3fuo

This comment refers to a later version of the text.