A Matter of Trust: Why we cannot be neutral about net neutrality

It is the quality of the digital that the more transparent our machines become, the more opaque they become. The more we trust private corporations, intermediaries and service providers to take care of our digital networks, the more we lose control of our digital actions. The recent debates around net neutrality are indicative of these hidden and opaque practices that are often operationalised without our knowledge or consent.

We need to understand the two things that are at stake here: The first is the idea of bandwidth shaping. The original architecture of the internet was proposed as being agnostic to the quality of the documents and files that are being accessed. So, no matter where the content is located, the digital network will try to maximise the speed and give you the shortest route of access to that data. The opposite of this is called bandwidth shaping. It basically says that the person who pays more is able to push their message out faster on the internet. So take the scenario where you are competing with a multi-billion dollar company for a new service that you have started. The company can pay Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or hosting services so that their websites load faster. Bandwidth shaping can ensure that when there is a traffic surge, the websites that pay for it load faster and attract more users whereas the smaller ones will just take that much longer to load and be accessed. This unfair advantage that seeks to create VIP lanes on the internet not for the important user, but the important company, has already been contested and resisted, even though it does continue to resurface in everyday lives.

The second idea is even more sinister and is about violating the most foundational intention of the internet — net neutrality. It is not just resisting bandwidth shaping but insisting that the internet remain neutral to any and every node that appears in its network. It insists that the internet has to be uniformly neutral to all the services and cannot charge its users differently for the data that they consume. And this is exactly what the current ISPs in the country want to do. They are insisting that revenues be tied not only to the amount of traffic that is being consumed but that it should be about the quality of data that the user consumes. So let’s say, for example, that your average usage on the internet is around 2 GB right now. As long as you use these 2 GB for whatever purposes, no matter how you use it, your service provider cannot charge you anything extra. You can download movies, you can video chat with your friends and family, you can help NASA search for extra terrestrial life — as long as you have bought the right to consume a certain amount of data, you are at complete freedom to do what you like.

But now, the companies are suggesting that if you use part of this to make VOIP calls, or Skype with your colleagues, or use messaging systems like WhatsApp, they will charge you extra because this data is not like the others.

In the guise of revenues and returns, these companies are trying to control what data you use and what you use your internet connection for. They are not only shaping your behaviour but also penalising you for behaviour they think is not desirable for their own profits.

Giving away this amount of control to any service provider who monitors, evaluates, and then punishes its users for legal practices that they do not favour, is a fundamental violation of our rights of free speech and expression. This is no longer a battle of technologists and service providers. It has direct impact on how you and I talk to each other and connect with the world around us. And if you do not join this battle, there might come a day when a company decides to send you a premium bill for saying I love you to your partner, or for making that phone call to watch your loved ones across geographies and lifestyles.

Nishant Shah is a professor of new media and the co-founder of The Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore