What is net neutrality and should Bermudians care? Well they should, as it will impact who controls the Internet and what content they can access.

It is a particularly important debate for Bermuda, where there is not a lot of choice as to which supplier you use. Net neutrality basically refers to the 'freedom' of the Internet, by some, and to others as the 'Wild West'.

On the Wild West of the Internet all data is treated as equally important no matter its origin, size or importance. So a request by an Internet user for a multimedia site, streaming video, or other high-bandwidth data is treated the same as an e-mail or regular site. You get them at the same speed and time. So, except for illegal content, which many Internet service providers are required to prevent from reaching users if they know about it, there is no filtering of content in democratic societies.

The hot debate in North America and Europe about net neutrality was sparked off when Google and Verizon, a telecommunications provider, proposed creating what some are calling a two-tier Internet.

First, it is an unholy alliance which has the potential to give Google way too much power. Is a merger or takeover in the offing? Any teaming up by Google with a major US telecommunications provider is cause for alarm.

Secondly, the proposal stinks for the consumer. The Google and Verizon proposal is a reaction to the US Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) proposal to imbed the concept of net neutrality into law. This is being done after a court ruled the FCC did not have jurisdiction in trying to ban Comcast Corp., a cable company, from blocking or limiting access to BitTorrent, a file sharing service that consumes a lot of bandwidth.

Telecoms and cable companies want to be able to do such blocking of specific sites, plus charge high-bandwidth sites, such as YouTube, for delivering content faster to users. Google and Verizon propose to keep net neutrality for the Internet, but propose that for wireless delivery it would be up to the provider. There would be a slow Internet and a fast Internet for companies that can afford to pay for access. The companies say this would allow them to pay for and develop their infrastructure.

Hold on, isn't the user paying for access? If so, I would rather pay for the access to all content rather than have a service where that access is determined by my provider.

Proponents of this proposal say that the market will determine such decisions. If I do not want it, I can just go to a provider that gives me more access.

Opponents say that such tiered access would kill or limit innovation. The trend is away from wired to wireless connections. Do we want a toll-gate on the Internet? Can you imagine what the telecoms companies would do if they could block or limit competitors such as Skype? The block would be in immediately.

While this is a US battle, it has implications for the rest of us. As users begin to use more and more bandwidth, telecoms companies are looking for ways to get back to the fat revenues they lost when monopolies in their sector were broken up. Opponents say breaking net neutrality would allow service providers to use their still formidable market strength to charge both users and content and application providers premium fees to connect to each other.

In the end, it would work out to double billing consumers. The first bill would be for their connection. The second bill would be the extra charges the content and applications providers might have to levy to gain access to users.

For more information on how the opponents to the Google-Verizon proposal are attempting to lobby for Internet neutrality visit www.savetheinternet.com I am sure Bermuda's telecoms providers will have a lot to say on this issue if it becomes adopted practice in the US.

Send any comments to Ahmed at elamin.ahmed@gmail.com