Tema proposto numa discussão da Diplo Foundation: One of the common assertions in the Internet Governance debate is that any future Internet Governance regime should preserve the key principle of Internet architecture - “end-to-end networking.” The usual justification propounded is that this networking architecture facilitated the Internet’s rapid development as well as the promotion of certain values, including creative freedom and freedom of expression. The question of Internet architecture has been in the focus of the US-based discussion on “net neutrality”. Should the technical solution based on “end-to-end networking” be the basis for a future Internet Governance regime? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this approach? What are the main forces against the current architecture of the Internet? Please focus on these and other questions you find appropriate.
This openness and the generative capability are end products of the “end-to-end networking” principle, which sustains that it is better to have a “dumb” network with little comprehension of the content being transmitted and the “power” - languages, software and other applications - at the client. This allows individuals to control their destiny – to create the World Wide Web, YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook, free software, and much more.
The phrase “bits are bits” is a metaphor for this impartiality. Video bits on YouTube are no different to the network than angry political text in the blogosphere. Defenders of Net Neutrality (NN) set this argument as one of the main arguments in favor of democracy, creativity, unmediated innovation and consumer rights, since this non-discriminatory treatment of information as equal “bits” makes access to knowledge possible in a non-discriminatory way and provides necessary openness for development. Reinforcing this argument, IGF Athens Agenda declared that openness, when associated with the free and evenhanded flow of information and knowledge, is a “founding principle and characteristic of the Internet”.
However, the Internet begins plays an ever-increasing role in the economy and, as technical capabilities of identifying certain packets and treating them differently grow, new criteria for discriminating against certain types of traffic are technically feasible. It is possible now to discriminate some kinds of bits from others.
The discussions of implementation of these new criteria confirm that technology is not neutral; it is always formatted to reflect the interest of the people that built it. The stakeholders in this debate are, in the side that favors neutrality, companies such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, NGOs such as CEA and Free Press and academics such as Lessig and Tim Wu. The opponents are the actors from the “old” and “mass-mediated” information economy such as
But what are the implications of abandoning the idea of “bits are bits”? And how should future Internet Governance regimes deal with neutrality, taking into account the different levels of economic development of the countries and actors that are part of this dispute?
The end-to-end approach should prevail, under a regulated system that take into account the Internet as a public good. This should be the rule at least for the time needed for some goals be reached, such as building capacity and breaking the huge digital division in developing countries that are particularly exposed to the negative effects of Internet fragmentation.
Moreover in cases such as
Thus, the end of NN would affect strongly the possibilities of development in
“W3C, The Rule of Least Power. 2006. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower
Noam, E. (2006). A third way for net neutrality. Financial Times [online]. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/acf14410-3776-11db-bc01-0000779e2340.html
For more information about the debate on NN and Consumer Rights refer to: Why Consumers Demand Internet Freedom. http://www.freepress.net/docs/nn_fact_v_fiction_final.pdf
Bocache, Mikheyev and Paque, The Network Neutrality Debate and Development. March 2007. p. 5. http://www.diplomacy.edu/poolbin.asp?IDPool=453.