'Net Neutrality': A Nettlesome Question

Net neutrality is once again in the news, as detailed by Grant Gross of IDG News Service in a story about a bill newly introduced in Congress that aims to require ISPs to provide their customers with even-handed service. Net neutrality invites controversy on a number of points, but one key issue--the lack of consensus about what the term actually means--rarely receives much attention. Think of this as a multiple-choice quiz question:

"Net neutrality" refers to what?

a) Network neutrality
b) Internet neutrality
c) What's left after you subtract operating expenses from gross neutrality
d) A feature of fishing legislation that doesn't distinguish between dip netting, drag netting, drift netting, and seining

The answer, according to Wikipedia, is (a) and (b): "Network neutrality (equivalently net neutrality, Internet neutrality or simply NN) refers to a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks." And what might that principle be? Well, the Wikipedia pundits say evasively, "Precise definitions vary." Eventually, though, the Wiksters disclose three possible meanings.

The first attempt at a definition comes from Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia University Law School: "a network design principle [that] aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."

This wording has the great advantage of defining "network neutrality" without reference to the Internet. In fact, Wu nominates "the electric grid" as a familiar example of network neutrality in action. But the breadth of his definition is a weakness, too: "Net neutrality" is a political issue today not at the general level of a design principle, but in the concrete instance of policies that ISPs adopt in providing Internet service to their various customers.

The second Wikipedia definition, drawn from Google's "A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users," sounds quite different: "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet."

That's clear and succinct, but it refers to the Internet twice and to non-Internet networks not at all--so why does Google assert that the definition applies to "network neutrality" rather than to "Internet neutrality"? It's sort of like describing the details of an ordinance that requires all dogs in public places to be kept on leashes and then calling the ordinance a "mammal leash law."

The third Wikipedia offering cites Susan Crawford of Yeshiva University's Benjamin Cardozo School of Law as its source: "a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for Quality of Service considerations." Like the Google definition, this one seems to be about "Internet neutrality," and not "network neutrality" in general.

Maybe our well-informed readers can help us decide (after all, Webster's Dictionary works on a similarly democratic principle, where what the majority thinks a word means is what it means--think of yourself as living in a nation of Humpty-Dumpties). Let us know where you fall on the "NN" question by casting your vote (if not your net) for "net neutrality" (i.e., "network neutrality"), "Net neutrality" (i.e., "Internet neutrality"), or neither.

A quick recent troll through the Web with Google turned up the following results:

"Internet neutrality": 42,000 matches
"network neutrality": 306,000 matches
"net [or Net] neutrality": 2,830,000 matches

Evidently, a lot more people (roughly 264,000 more, if we treat each match as unique) think "net neutrality" refers to "network neutrality" than think it refers to "Internet neutrality"--but far more people than that (roughly 2.48 million more) use the short form without worrying about what "net" (or "Net") is short for.

Why does it matter? Two reasons come to mind. The first is a copyediting technicality: If "net neutrality" refers to "network neutrality," then the n in "net" should be lowercase; whereas if the term refers to "Internet neutrality," the N should capitalized--assuming that, like PCW, you refer to "the Net" with a capital N.

But the second reason involves simple coherence: If the phrase "vet program" started showing up millions of times on Google in connection with some political controversy, I'd want to know whether the "vet" stood for "veteran," "veterinarian," or "Corvette"--wouldn't you?

The difference between network neutrality and Internet neutrality may not be as obvious as the difference between a veteran and a veterinarian, but I think it's real, no matter what Wikipedia says. (And if you believe that the overlap between network neutrality and Internet neutrality diminishes the importance of the distinction, consider that there are at least a few vet vets who drive 'vettes.)

English is hardly immune to illogical phrases and to popular misunderstandings of technical terms, which makes a purely democratic approach to language imperfect. For instance, most people spend most of the day with their head at a higher altitude than their feet; yet we describe a person who has inverted that orientation as being "head over heels."

In a similar vein, the phrase "steep learning curve" is popularly understood to mean "difficult to learn," even though a graph of learning (on the x-axis) over time (on the y-axis) that produces a steep curve represents rapid or easy learning, while a very gradual ascent represents slow or difficult learning. Is "net neutrality" likewise a case of widespread misunderstanding?

Come to think of it, the companies centrally implicated in the "net neutrality" controversy are called "Internet service providers," not "Internet network providers," so arguably "service neutrality" would be a more accurate term than either "network neutrality" or "Internet neutrality." But then we'd probably find ourselves tangled up in a controversy over whether the proper short form of the phrase was "serve neutrality" or "surf neutrality."

Comments

Post a comment Post a comment

0 / 1000 max characters