Last year’s Net Neutrality debate, which sort of fizzled without any resolution, is back in the news again thanks in part to local cable provider, Comcast. Comcast has been accused of intentionally blocking BitTorrent traffic on their network. A coalition of consumer groups has asked the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the matter and possibly fine Comcast.

Net Neutrality states that all data on the Internet is equal and that no bit should be treated differently because of its origin or content. This should be familiar to most people since this is largely how the Internet has functioned since its beginning.

BitTorrent, a protocol on the Internet, is used to transfer very large files in an efficient manner. It has been used to illegally copy files, but each day there are more and more legal uses of BitTorrent, particularly by media companies transferring movies to customers.

Comcast should be familiar to anybody who lives off campus as they are essentially the only game in town for cable television or broadband Internet. The remaining offerings for Internet service are DSL providers, but they are easily 10 times slower than cable and not always available depending on your distance from the telephone office and the quality of your line.

Along with many other Internet service providers (or ISPs), Comcast is running into many problems as of late. For years, they have billed their service as “unlimited,” but of course, there is no unlimited commodity. Now that customers are using programs like BitTorrent, Internet phones and YouTube, bandwidth use has exploded.

Most ISPs, however, have spent too little money to expand their capacities and now they’re in a crunch. Rather than own-up and deal with this in a sane manner, they’ve opted to work in the shadows. The BitTorrent blocking issue is the latest effort to stem the tide.

Comcast has only admitted to “delaying” the traffic and even this admission came only after several stories in the media. Beyond that, Comcast’s executive vice president, David Cohen, has maintained that they “engage in reasonable network management.” If true, that would be reasonable.

This is where Net Neutrality comes back into the picture. Cable Internet providers are not “common carriers” as the telephone companies are. Rather, they are “information carriers.” This subtle distinction means they are, to some extent, responsible for what data they carry, but it also gives them greater freedom over what they can and cannot do with their network.

In a perfect world, it wouldn’t matter. You would just pick another provider like you would if you were unhappy with your cell phone service. But outside of major cities you are not very likely to have a choice. One of the goals of the Net Neutrality legislation is to make all Internet providers play nice and not mangle any of the data.

There is danger in the legislation as well. In order to have teeth, it must not be written by an industry shill; but at the same time, it must account for the finer details so as not to hobble an important part of the economy. Sadly, bureaucracies are generally not very good at this balancing act.

ISPs need to manage their traffic at some level. Using a method known as “quality of service,” an ISP can preferentially treat, for example, Internet phone traffic which must be delivered as fast as possible to be of any use. Bulk BitTorrent traffic can similarly be put at the back of the line without actually blocking it. Any new law must not be so strict as to disallow this type of management.

Yet, even here, large ISPs have demonstrated an inability to do the right thing. Some customers of Vonage, an Internet phone company, have alleged that companies like Comcast have sufficiently delayed Vonage traffic to the point of having bad service. The idea is that an unhappy customer will drop Vonage in favor of Comcast’s own phone offering.

Net Neutrality is something of a regulatory bludgeon, and large ISPs are scared to death of it. Not wanting the government to make the situation worse than it already is, the legislation should be seen as a final resort. But what alternative is there? With no competition in many places, the U.S. has broadband Internet prices much higher than many other countries with the added benefit of providers drunk on their own power.

If I had any choice in the matter, I would drop Comcast in a heartbeat. But at my apartment in Amherst, you either get Comcast or get nothing. Net Neutrality legislation will not make my Internet service cheaper or open me to new providers, but it will ensure that the connection I have is free from severe tampering. In the end, the Internet will be better off with it.

John Gruenenfelder is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].