The issue of the Internet's neutrality, a.k.a. net neutrality, was back in the headlines last month, as a result of a proposal developed by Google and Verizon, as Denise Bedell covered in this post. Net neutrality basically means that Internet service providers treat all traffic - from e-commerce orders to spam to emails from your college buddies - the same.

Net neutrality proponents say that's as it should be; that no organization should decide what traffic deserves priority and gets to travel more quickly through the ether. Service providers, on the other hand, say they need some way to manage their networks, lest bandwidth-hogging videos, for instance, crowd out other types of traffic.

Essentially, Google and Verizon came down on the side of net neutrality, except where it concerned wireless broadband. The industry is so competitive and changing so quickly that net neutrality shouldn't apply just yet, they said.

Not surprisingly, the companies' reasoning quickly came under attack from net neutrality advocates, such as the Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America. "Internet service providers should be giving preferential treatment to certain sites or services that pay for that treatment," Ellen Bloom, Consumers Union director of federal policy said in a statement. She added that the Verizon-Google arrangement could lead to a system similar to cable TV, in which consumers pay for different levels of service and content.

It's not just consumers' pocketbooks at stake, according to Al Franken, Democratic senator from Minnesota. "If the Internet is under the control of corporate elites, democracy as we know it doesn't exist," he said in this story in the Star Tribune.  

The Economist, in its September 4 issue, expands the issue by looking at how ISPs work in other parts of the world. In many countries, network operators are required to lease parts of their networks to other firms on a wholesale basis, the Economist writes. Network operators in the US have argued that opening up their networks to competitors would destroy any incentive they have to build up those same networks.

It seems like a logical argument. However, according to this study by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, America "currently is a middle-of-the-pack performer on most first generation broadband measures, but a weak performer on prices for high and next generation speeds." Out of the 30 OECD countries, for instance, the U.S. ranked 15^th for fixed broadband penetration. When it comes to prices for next generation speeds, the U.S. came in 19^th out of 19 countries in the category. 

What's behind these results, which many might call counter-intuitive? The open access policies in other countries lower the barriers to entry for players looking to get into the Internet services market. More competition has led to better prices and services.

At this point, it's difficult to say just how the battle over net neutrality in the US  will wind up. However, let's hope that policymakers and corporate players in the network market consider the experience of other countries as they make their decisions.