The Internet has become a battleground lately; instead of fighting over adult content, trademark rights,

search results and market share, the fighting is over the very speed at which you can receive any data.

Recently, Google and Verizon have made a compromise over net neutrality and the eventual rules to follow.

This “regulation” over the way online traffic is handled has divided the internet. Despite the compact made

between Google and Verizon, Facebook, Ebay, Skype and Amazon, have spoken out against the pact, and

stated their unwillingness to accept these new rules.

As part of the new pact, Verizon acknowledged it is prepared to accept restrictions if they would have the freedom to charge Internet companies a surcharge to have their services carried on a new faster channel that would run parallel to the existing Internet.

As a compromise, they would insist upon no restrictions on their ability to block or slow services on their mobile network.

Google however lost some former allies in the longtime campaign for net neutrality.

Google, along with a collection of public interest groups, are part of the Open Internet Coalition.

Google’s partners in this coalition criticized the company for putting together a proposal that they said

betrayed their previously agreed upon net neutrality principles.  Amazon and eBay, appeared to be

concerned with the Verizon and Google alliance, but did not make a statement in this regard.

Facebook however has made a point publicly to part ways with Google. In a statement, Facebook, has

suggested that exempting wireless networks from net neutrality rules, is the wrong approach.

This begs the question from some us; what is network neutrality?

To summarize, network neutrality is a principle based on the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs)

should be required to treat all web traffic equally. This means that regardless of content type or origin, there

is no control over the data passing from content providers to end users. ISPs should not block any lawful

content or control their infrastructure to preferentially deal with any kind of data.

Proponents to the regulation say that exponential growth in usage, specifically around video applications,

rising peer-to-peer file sharing, and higher infrastructure costs means their business has become more

costly.

Their argument centers around the ability to control the data rates for the various types of content;

tightening the pipeline for individuals and slowing speeds at particular times, and deciding which content

gets bandwidth preference will allow the delegation of what they deem as more urgent applications.

Opponents to the regulation, contend that everyone has the right to open access to the Internet. They state

their concern that any erosion of net neutrality would usher in an era of tiered service, where

telecommunication companies would monopolize the Internet, and personal users will be throttled down to

dial up speed. The fear is that these same companies would be allowed to strong arm users to pay a

premium for barely usable service and force out any new competition. Most people believe this move

would freeze innovation, and basically create an unnecessary toll system for regulated access, and remove

the freedom that exists online currently.

In addition, many industry groups see any government intervention as the first step toward government

control of the Internet.

The next logical question would seem to be, how will this war end?

Sides have changed since the inception of this idea. For example, Google who was once an advocate of

network neutrality has switched sides with Verizon to embrace a shared vision of control. Their vision of

control does not extend to mobile traffic and certain content that benefits their companies.

Amazingly, and temporarily, the Government has essentially switched sides by calling off negotiations for

the time being. The FCC stated they did not feel the framework was properly in place to preserve the

freedom of the Internet as it exists.

A truce it seems, is the end of the discussion for now, but rest assured this issue is far from over.