The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has released draft rules to reinstate net neutrality, marking a significant step toward preserving an open and equal internet. However, there are concerns that the proposed rules may not fully protect consumers if they preempt state-level regulations and allow for the creation of "fast lanes."

Net neutrality, the principle that all data should be treated equally by internet service providers (ISPs), faces threats from the concept of "network slicing," a technology that allows ISPs to prioritize certain services or applications over others. While network slicing has promising applications, ISPs' plans to use it to create exclusive fast lanes would undermine the core principles of net neutrality.

The draft rules, set for a vote on April 25th, have been generally welcomed as a positive step for net neutrality. However, to be truly effective in safeguarding an open internet, the rules must not override states' rights to enact stronger laws that protect residents. Additionally, they must explicitly prohibit the creation of fast lanes based on positive discrimination or unpaid prioritization of specific services.

To understand the concept of fast lanes, it is helpful to think of data traffic as similar to car traffic on a road system. Just as more lanes on a road can accommodate more vehicles at higher speeds, increased bandwidth in internet infrastructure should support applications like streaming services and online gaming. However, ISPs have a maximum capacity for internet traffic, which can result in slower speeds during peak hours when traffic congestion occurs.

The concept of fast lanes on the internet is not inherently negative. Similar to specialized lanes on roads for particular vehicles, such as buses, fast lanes for specific types of data traffic can improve efficiency and reduce congestion. However, problems emerge when exclusive fast lanes are created for certain services or applications, favoring some at the expense of degrading service for others.

An internet fast lane would designate a portion of the network with higher bandwidth and/or lower latency for specific services. This would involve segmenting the physical network infrastructure into different software-defined networks, each optimized for different use cases. Imagine a four-lane road, with two lanes reserved exclusively for streaming services like Disney+, HBO, and Netflix. While this may enhance the quality of those services, it would result in degraded service for other internet traffic if not implemented in a neutral manner.

Proponents of net neutrality argue that such prioritization violates the principles of fair and equal treatment. Fast lanes, by favoring specific applications or services, not only throttle other internet traffic but also create winners and losers within the digital landscape. This can have a detrimental impact on free speech, competition, and consumer choice. If one application is faster than another, consumers are incentivized to use the faster one, potentially harming competition and stifling innovation.

While network slicing itself is not necessarily problematic, using it as a loophole to circumvent net neutrality principles is a concern. Efforts to manage network quality of service should prioritize an application-agnostic approach, ensuring every internet user has equal access and speed.

As the FCC moves forward with the draft rules, it is crucial for them to address these concerns and to work towards a net neutrality framework that truly protects consumers. Preserving an open internet, free from discrimination and unfair advantages, is essential for the continued growth and innovation of the digital era.