Net neutrality is an issue that, despite being contentious internationally, does not have a big profile in New Zealand. Unknown to most, our individual usage of the Internet is today determined by the net neutrality policy of service providers and the government. In some cases, that policy is good for society, in others, it is good for the service provider.

So what is net neutrality?

To consumers, it is the absolute principle that all internet content must be treated equally. So we should be able to access any web content or application without any restriction imposed by governments or Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

It is clear and obvious that if we are shopping on-line for a new appliance, we should be able to access all shops that sell that appliance on-line and not just the shops that have an access agreement with your ISP.

Is it clear and obvious that if we want to access a child porn site for example, then we should be permitted to do so? Many ISPs already filter, or restrict, our access to such sites for moral reasons.

The telcos and ISPs providing services will argue that they need to control the volume of data traffic for operational reasons. For example, when systems are overloaded with residents watching TV On-Demand, and the local medical centre needs to conduct a video referral with an international expert, should the medical centre be given priority? Or should they suffer the same stuttering video connection that we often get with Youtube.

To give the medical centre priority means that the service provider is not net neutral and whilst most will agree with that, it is a contentious justification.

Maintaining the principle of net neutrality, requires the service provider to continue to increase data capacity ahead of demand. Unless broadband users upgrade to a higher data-rate plan, for example from a 5GB plan to a 15GB one, ISPs do not get an increase in revenues as data flows increase. But we still expect ISPs to invest in ever-greater capacity to meet our ever-growing demand. This lack of investment is one reason that we see our Internet connection slowing down in the late afternoon and early evening. It is also a reason that some ISPs throttle the speed of peer-to-peer file sharing applications like BitTorrent connections.

We may be able to find a justification for discriminating against people who are sharing files. People using video Skype may accept a loss of video quality because the application is free to use but should those that pay for a telephone connection over their broadband accept a loss of call quality?

The issues of net neutrality are not at all clear cut.

In Europe, legislation enshrining net neutrality principles is proposed as a means of maintaining an Internet that is open and free from the influence of ISPs and content providers who want to control access and therefore, maximize profits.

The argument rages in the US where the government's pro-neutrality position may be summed up by the saying "any lawful content, any lawful application, any lawful device, and any provider". The anti-neutralists' position is about enshrining competitive advantage and extracting new revenue streams by charging large content providers extra fees for their access to a 'free' distribution channel.

In New Zealand, our Internet is far from 'net neutral' and our policy makers need to wake up to the issues to avoid the overly bureaucratic European solution, or worse, our defaulting to the US outcome of control by the big players.