Open Letter Regarding Net Neutrality

Seeing the debate currently going on in Washington regarding the issue of "Net Neutrality", which I fear is not well understood by a lot of people, particularly politicians, I felt compelled to write my congressional representatives the following letter. As I put a lot of thought into it and thought that others might also find what I have to say interesting or persuasive, I'm posting it here as well. Enjoy!

I have not frequently written representatives regarding any issue, but I feel strongly on the issue of the topic known commonly as "Net Neutrality" and feel compelled to let you, as my representative in Congress, know my perspective.

I am a librarian working at Winnetka Public Library in Winnetka and I live in Northbrook. When I was hired in 1997 it was because of my knowledge of computers and of the Internet and its protocols. As part of my job it has been necessary for me to use the Internet extensively for research, web development, education, and providing basic services for the library for which I work. At home I use the Internet for communication, self-education, computer maintenance and entertainment. My Internet connection comes through AT&T from whom I also receive cable television and phone service.

In this debate on the subject of "Net Neutrality" it seems that there are several concerns expressed by corporations which provide Internet connectivity that it is necessary to institute some kind of tiered access so that limited bandwidth resources can be preserved and that applications which use a lot of bandwidth can be stopped from using excessive percentages of bandwidth. Limited Internet resources can be a problem, as many libraries with which I have contact and my own library are only too aware. However, I think that there are appropriate ways to deal with the problem and innapropriate ways to deal with the problem, and the option of implementing a tiered solution, a solution which treats different kinds of data differently, is a potentially very dangerous one going forward.

As I mentioned, libraries have had to deal with the problems of limited bandwidth. As a small library, our problems have been smaller than most. We have (by current standards) a relatively limited 1.5 Mbps T-1 line through which all of our Internet traffic goes. As part of a consortium, by necessity we need to keep our computers connected constantly to a remote server for all basic library services. We have a bank of computers which the public may use to access the Internet as well as an Internet hotspot which the public may freely use with their own equipment. We have taken two measures to make sure that our network runs smoothly: we restrict the speed of the hotspot to 256 Kbps and we reserve a portion of our bandwith for library operations if other Internet functions start to interfere.

These I think are reasonable approaches to the problem. I also think, that in the case of corporations, if they wished to implement a metered service (as has been traditionally the case with phone service) that could also be a reasonable measure. My concern is that with the limited amount of competition available, particularly in faster, cheaper, and more reliable wired services, some of the market forces which might otherwise protect the consumer cannot come into play. There are no pure "Internet Service Providers" available if a home user wants a high-bandwidth line to their home. They must use a cable company (Comcast) or a phone company (AT&T). The Internet itself offers products which compete with phone and cable services. It would only be natural in our capitalist system for companies to recognize this conflict and take measures to marginalize competition which favored one of their services over another competing service.

To use a kind of analogy with our road system. It is a reasonable thing to post a speed limit and say "all vehicles must travel no faster than 35 miles per hour, no matter what kind of car you are driving." It is also a reasonable thing to make a toll road and say "all vehicles must pay according to a set scale a fair amount based on how far you drive on our roads and how heavy your vehicle is." It is not a reasonable thing to say "cars with Illinois plates may drive 55 miles per hour on this road, but cars from other states may only go 35 miles per hour because this road is paid for largely by Illinois tax dollars."

Likewise, bits traveling from one computer to another computer should not be descriminated against because of the kind of data they carry. If the connection is slow, all bits traveling from a common source should have the same hinderances. If the connection is fast, all bits traveling from a common source should have the same advantages. It should not be an option for a company to say, "this bit is from a Microsoft update so it can go its merry way, but this bit is from a streaming video service which which I compete and so it will be a little delayed or maybe even blocked entirely."

I fear that leaving this option open will inevitably lead to companies taking advantage of it, and because of limited competition in this sphere customers will have little option but to accept it or pay more money for prioritized service. This in turn will stifle the same kind of innovation which has made the Internet such an amazing resource and a force for the free flow of information that it has been over the last decade, in spite of its faults.

I plead with you to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 and work against any policies which would leave the fate of data in our networks vulnerable to the whim of private interests.