The Swiss had the right idea...

When it comes to topic of neutrality, the classic example that comes to mind is Switzerland's neutrality stance during WWII. It's interesting when discussing the issue of net neutrality to at least brush upon the Swiss' (in)famous passivity. From several viewpoint, their decision to stay out of a war where most major powers at the time were taking sides was a wimpy cop-out; a way for the Swiss to save money, time, and effort on a cause the rest of the world saw fit to risk their lives for - fighting over Facism/Nazism. However, others saw the Swiss' move as one of calculated intelligence, one in which most of all, they potentially saved hundred of thousands of lives. More relevant to the topic at hand, the Swiss felt that they did not have the right to argue either side, and did not see themselves at liberty to say what was right or wrong; what could be controlled or censored in our world, and what could not. In debating net neutrality, the cause of all this ruckus is slightly less menacing than Nazism. However, the idea of being passive or active certainly comes into question. With net neutrality, Just as in the case of WWII, vast changes for the entire globe were on the horizon. Most countries saw it necessary to step in and take action, while the Swiss felt compelled to let things play out as nature had intended. With net neutrality, this same call to action is being felt almost everywhere, particularly in the political/economic arena. The main issue at hand when discussing net neutrality is that today, an internet exists where, for the most part, content is unrestricted, and attention to data is equal and unbiased. However, many in the business field claim that this model of the internet will not hold up in an increasingly demanding market. Using the growth and expansion of networks like telephone and television as models to compare the net's growth, they argue that there is a need to begin regulating and restricting the content on the web for the purposes of offering a better, smoother running service for those willing to pay the extra dollar. Many organizations are in favor of abandoning this old format of net neutrality. The Net Competition group states that their goal is to create an internet that is constantly growing and becoming more efficient, so that consumers can receive the most benefits technologically possible without "government micromanagement". their mission statement reads as follows:

• A constantly-improving Internet that functions most efficiently, effectively, and productively so consumers and the economy can enjoy maximum benefit, productivity, and growth;
• A consumer-driven, on-demand Internet where consumer demand, not government fiat, ensure consumers are not blocked from the legal content, applications, and devices of their choice;
• A vibrantly growing and competitive broadband market free of government micromanagement that maximizes economic growth, job creation, and U.S. competitiveness; and
• A win-win growth dynamic where everyone on the Internet: network operators, device makers, application developers, and content providers -- enjoy the freedom to innovate, invest and differentiate to best serve their customers and advance our economy.

Companies like Comcast and Verizon have also agreed with dropping the neutrality, and have taken matters into their own hands by recently blocking Bit torrent traffic in order to give their customers better service.

Obviously, with any argument there is an opposition, and in this case, the pro net neutrality side out weighs the anti neutrality side by a large portion. Pro net neutrality enthusiasts wish for the internet to be free from regulations and restrictions from large corporations, while the pro net neutrality extremists rally for net neutrality to be embeded as a law. We see this strong urge from the pro net neutrality side manifested in several 2008 presidential candidates, both on conservative and liberal sides. Barack Obama appeared on MTV recently, and when possed the question of his stance on the neutrality issue, he responded:
"I am a strong supporter of net neutrality. And in case folks weren’t following exactly the question I just want to make sure everybody’s clear.
“Right now the speed with which and quality of your downloads or links are the same if you’re going to the CNN or Time Warner website as if you were going to barackobama.com. But what you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and portals through which you’re getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different websites and webcasts. So now what you’d have is, potentially, you could, you could get much better quality from the Fox News site and you’d be getting rotten service from some mom and pop site. And that, I think, destroys one of the best things about the Internet — which isthat there is this incredible equality there".
Interestingly enough, the conservative candidate Mike Huckabee, when he wasn't boning up on his bass-playin' skillz, also took time to debate the issue of net neutrality, and eventually concluded that net neutrality was something to support, despite his republican association with big business and corporate gain. Huckabee shed some intellectual insight on the subject, likening the web to a sort of "information superhighway", if you will. He explained to his fellow republicans, "The Internet is a highway, and we don't restrict highways to 18-wheelers. If it's a car, an SUV, or a truck, you use the same highway."

Personally, i see problems with both sides of the argument. The anti-net neutrality gang claims that neutrality is crushing the spirit of innovation. In their eyes, tiering the pricing of the web based on quality of service is a progressive move necessary, and is therefore deemed as an "innovative" step in the life of the internet. However, the pro net neutrality side is heavily favored in the political realm, and because it is so certain about setting neutrality in stone through law, i am equally in opposition. To me, the fate of the net seems out of my hands, and the debate is more a question of corporate vs. federal. Whho would you rather side with, the money grubbing, big business corporations looking to squeeze a couple more dollars out of the internet through "innovation", or the goverment. Trust...the government? 'nuff said? It's a lesser of two evils, who in my opinion are already so tightly entangled in each other that they're indestinguishible. However, in the end, i would have to say that i would side with the group who i can at least use a vote and have a voice as to what will happen. By voting for certain legislation and political candidates who support net neutrality, i will be able to have some influence, which is more than i would have trying to connect with some inhuman corporation.

And besides that whole element of control the pro net neutrality side posses, i also have a seperate bone to pick with those anti-neutrality freaks. I was living in SF this summer, and had just relocated to the NOPA area of the city. As i peeled open my macbook sitting indian style on the hardwood floors of my empty bedroom, i browsed the wireless connections for any potential clueless neighbors with unprotected wifi for the taking. Soon i came across a connection entitled, "freetheNET", and i clicked with curiosity. just like that i was submerged in the world wide web. Aand who did i have to take but Google, who had launched a city wide free internet program earlier in the summer. What a generous gesture, i thought to myself, and almost felt a humanistic connection with a corporation who otherwise i would not feel any personal compassion. And then who comes along to crush my temporary moment of free-internet-bliss but another corporation, Comcast, who saw the oppurtunity to make bank off the net just as it was tettering on the edge of breaking into a new dimension of radical selflessness and universality. It inevitable that these corporations will battle back and forth over these issues of regulation, profit, restriction, and "innovation, but really, all i have to say is, if the internet is a resource that we are all well aware posesses serious benefits for our society, why not make it available to as many people as possible instead of tiering access to it based on your level of income and your stance in the world.