The WSJ reports that Obama’s pick for FCC chairman is Julius Genachowski, Obama’s top tech adviser. He’s the mastermind of the Obama’s technology and innovation plan that supports net neutrality and ubiquitous cheap broadband.

Theres a good article over at Popular Mechanics about the candidates’ different views on net neutrality.

The article brings up some interesting points.

Firstly, the article brings up the point of there not being one clear cut definition of ‘net neutrality.’ Thats actually a point that I think hasn’t been brought up a lot. The general principle of net neutrality, according to Wikipedia:

A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.

Basically what this means is that all content on the internet should be equally accessable to users, without any sort of censorship. In practice, what could happen without net neutrality is that if I am a Comcast customer, Comcast could block or slow traffic to the competitors’ websites, or in another case could be like cable tv, where you pay monthly for the ‘basic’ service, and then if you want Google an extra $10, Facebook another $10. Obviously, bad. While the principal is there, there isn’t a clear consensus on to what extent to take the neutrality. Arguments range from everything should be completely free, that there should be equal access to all web content and applications, to the idea that as long as you aren’t charged more for a higher quality service, that is neutral enough, to the idea that as long as you are able to communicate with people who use a different service, that that is neutral enough. I realize that because there is this ambiguity in what being “for net neutrality” actually means, its hard for the candidates to have a prominant stance. (Plus, its not a major concern with Hockey Moms and Joe Six-pack, even though it should be.)

Secondly, lets take a look at McCain’s “anti net neutrality” stance. On his website it says:

John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like “net-neutrality,” but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices.

So while he doesnt support the idea of net neutrality, the way it is worded, McCain is more against government regulation of the internet than he is against net neutrality specifically. I guess McCain hopes this sort of laissez faire policy towards the internet will in the end work itself out, much like the free market economy we have in the US today (that’s worked out well recently). While this seems like a “It’s worked before, it will work now” sort of attitude, to me it seems like the McCain campaign doesn’t quite understand the internet. With little regulation, the ISPs will limit bandwidth and control net traffic. They have before in the past, and will definately try to again. Comcast was caught restricting BitTorrent traffic and was doing so until the FCC stepped in earlier this year. While Comcast claims it was for “network management” purposes, the ease and availability of high quality video content through BitTorrent posed a potential competitive threat to Comcast’s own Video on Demand service. Without any sort of legistation in place, I doubt that the ISPs will work out a fair and balanced solution for both the ISP and the consumers.

It really comes down to finding that common ground between the big business ISPs and the common user, and its hard for me to think that the ISPs will think about anything other than easy profit, without any legistlation forcing them to. It also is dependant on how you think about the internet. Is it a public utility that everyone should have equal access to, much like electricity or water? Or is it a luxury that you can do without, like HDTV? What do you think?