Find the best ‘net neutrality’

Twenty years ago, I helped build the infrastructure for online advertising so that anyone, anywhere, can access the world’s information free of charge. Quite a few years have passed, but today, that promise is still being delivered … and far beyond what I, and anyone else, ever envisioned. Today we have high-speed broadband and mobile internet connection, which lets people around the globe access information, communicate, and even run virtual businesses. Millions more are streaming and sharing different forms of content, socializing with people, and using revolutionary applications to improve their health. Tens of millions of us are living online and benefiting from the “open internet.”

Now, we’re facing a debate over so-called “net neutrality,” the outcome of which could limit the openness of the internet and even innovation, the bedrock of this complex, global network of networks. The “open internet” is undoubtedly the most successful free market experiment in technology we’ve ever seen. Should the FCC be intervening and imposing new “net neutrality” regulations? My adamant answer is hell no. The bigger issue with this debate is that few actually understand what we’re really talking about when it comes to “net neutrality,” a term that is brilliantly confusing and misleading.

{mosads}If you asked ten people to define “net neutrality,” you’d get ten different answers. When I refer to “net neutrality,” I’m referring to the theory that all data (streaming videos, downloading content, sending emails, etc.) on the internet should be treated equally by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Today, we don’t have “net neutrality,” we have an “open internet,” which is an internet that uses publicly available standards and practices to ensure the internet functions well and that everyone online – consumers and businesses alike – get the access and services they want or need. The key difference between “net neutrality” and the “open internet” is that “net neutrality” requires government intervention and regulation, which last I checked, is the exact opposite of the free and open internet that has been so successful to date. Why are we trying to fix something that isn’t broken?

Let’s consider two scenarios: one where we live in a world with “net neutrality” and one where we continue to live in a world with the “open internet.” To make things easier, I’m going to use the example of our internal networks at FindTheBest.

In a world with “net neutrality”

If we lived in a world with “net neutrality,” all data requested by each of our employees would have to be treated equally. If one employee was streaming music videos while drafting an email, and the other was on a Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) phone call with a potential client, the person taking the VoIP phone call would require more bandwidth to ensure seamless call quality, but under “net neutrality” all data is treated equally. This means that we wouldn’t be able to prioritize the phone call and would be forced to buy additional bandwidth to ensure high-quality calls. There goes money we could be spending on innovating, recruiting top talent, and developing our product.

In today’s world with the “open Internet”

With the “open internet”, we’re able to employ innovative technologies, such as Quality of Service (QoS) rules, to optimize our fixed bandwidth. This means we can guarantee the VoIP phone call has its needed bandwidth to ensure quality, while limiting the consumption taken by streaming music videos. This doesn’t stop our employees from watching high-quality music videos, it just clarifies that as a business, we place a higher value on VoIP phone calls. And, even better, we still have that extra money to innovative, recruit, and further develop our product.

In much of the discussion about “net neutrality,” there have been references to so-called “fast lanes” and “slow lanes.” You’ve likely heard that such “lanes” are unfair and bad for the internet. What you might not realize is that fast lanes have always existed on the internet, largely because of Quality of Service (QoS) rules. I’d be shocked if there’s a single, sophisticated company that doesn’t use QoS rules in their internal network and if you were to ask any network administrator to stop using QoS rules and treat all data equally, they’d look at you like you were crazy. They wouldn’t want the government imposing “net neutrality” rules on their internal networks, but that’s exactly what so-called “net neutrality” advocates are asking Washington to do to the networks ISPs run on their customers’ behalf.   

People are afraid of what might happen if we don’t implement rules for “net neutrality,” but it’s a misplaced fear. The internet is the greatest platform for human empowerment and innovation we’ve ever seen and it’s all been done in the free market without overbearing regulation. What people shouldbe concerned by is a government-regulated internet which will have untold and unintended consequences. Of that, I am certain.

O’Connor is CEO of FindTheBest, a privately held online research engine that collects, structures, and connects data. O’Connor founded DoubleClick, a Google subsidiary dedicated to online advertising.