Guest post by Char James-Tanny
Who owns the Internet? No one. Who controls the Internet? No one (except in certain countries that censor content, and that's not ownership). So what's all of the ruckus about?

Last month, Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) and Verizon (NYSE: VZ) released a proposal outlining the key elements for a neutral Internet framework. This proposal covered topics many consider to already be part of net neutrality: Consumer protections, non-discrimination, transparency and network management. Their proposal also allows for Internet service providers (ISPs) to offer additional services, as long as they offer base services. However, the items in this proposal mostly pertain to wired connections, not wireless.

Wireless access, like that used by mobile phones, eBook readers, and other devices, is only required by the proposal to adhere to transparency. According to Doug Garland of Google in 2009, "The mobile device is quickly becoming the world's newest gateway to information. Mobile device usage doubled from January 2008 to January 2009, and as of March 2009, there were 4 billion mobile subscribers."

Most opponents are concerned that the lack of wireless topics means that ISPs may try to control what you can and can't do with your wireless devices. Google, which has long been a proponent of net neutrality, could benefit because it now produces the Android mobile operating system and it owns YouTube. Verizon could benefit because of its mobile device market share. Basically, the concern is that anyone using an Android phone on the Verizon network could receive priority while watching YouTube videos, while other video sites received less priority (in other words, the videos would take longer to download). This, of course, could then be extended to other phones and other wireless networks, depending on which company pays the most.

Controlling what people can and can't do on their Internet devices, wired or wireless, violates the concept of net neutrality, which has been around since the beginning of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Tim Berners-Lee has said that he didn't need anyone's permission to design the web. "Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it."

Vint Cerf, who designed the Internet protocol TCP/IP along with Robert Kahn, says, "Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online."

Neither man is saying that access should be free, but they are saying that if you sign up for a certain level of connectivity, you should receive it.

Note that there is a difference between managing network traffic (and congestion) and prioritizing content for a fee. You can choose to prioritize your content; for example, you might want to allot more resources to a video than email while you watch a movie. What the supporters of net neutrality are worried about is that:

• ISPs may decide to prioritize your content based on fees paid for access.
• ISPs may decide to block content, especially content from their competitors.

Your choice should not be dependent on anyone else's arrangements, and you should not only be able to choose between watching YouTube or Hulu or GlobalTV, you should enjoy the same experience each time.

Char James-Tanny is president of JTF Associates, Inc. and has thirty years of experience as a technical communicator. She speaks around the world on topics including Help authoring concepts and tools, accessibility, social media, web standards, collaboration and technology. Char is a 2010 Microsoft Help MVP.

Related Articles:
Should businesses care about net neutrality?
Alleged Google, Verizon deal over net neutrality upends industry discussions
Comcast's win over FCC reignites Net Neutrality debate
FTC may become the net neutrality enforcer