Network Neutrality is a hot-button issue that concerns how the internet itself will be governed in years to come. One of the issues at the heart of the debate is the matter of bandwidth. The key questions: Is bandwidth a commodity? And if so, who can monetize it? Proponents of neutrality, like Google and Microsoft, argue that the internet is a great, equal platform from which all comers can speak on an equal footing. Others point out, however, that bandwidth is already a commodity—anyone who has signed up with a hosting service to publish a webpage knows that, in order to gain access to a wider audience, it is necessary to contract for the appropriate amount of bandwidth usage.

So the real question in the Network Neutrality debate, then, is if Internet Service Providers—the folks at the “core” who build and own the physical internet pipes—can monetize or otherwise “groom” their bandwidth. While it is unlikely that ISPs would ever attempt to charge all web-based content providers (they likely will maintain “best efforts” transmission for all), they might investigate entering into select partnerships in order to offer their subscribers certain higher quality, faster “edge-based” applications and content services. There are other issues to consider, as well—network innovation and platform diversity.

Some neutrality proponents imply that innovation should take place only at the internet’s “edge.” ISPs, on the other hand, take the view that innovation should also happen at the network’s “core” physical pipes. Allowing innovation at the core, ISPs argue, will pave the way for better edge services, because the core and edge exist together in a symbiotic relationship.

Neutrality advocates also assert that the current cable and DSL duopoly cannot be trusted to maintain open internet access. ISPs, however, believe that if network operators are allowed to reap the benefits of core/edge innovation through the provision of, for example, enhanced bandwidth to selected edge partners, then other entrants will be encouraged to build out new broadband pipes, resulting in “platform diversity” and more consumer choice.

In Congress, there have been a number of recent developments on this issue. For instance:

The Senate Commerce Committee voted on Wednesday to send the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act to the full Senate without the kind of sweeping network neutrality language lobbied for by “edge” service providers like Microsoft and Google. The neutrality issue proved divisive within the Committee, where a cadre of predominantly Democratic senators moved to amend the act to include principals enumerated in previous legislation. Though ultimately not included in the committee’s version of the CCBDA, those principals would have effectively rendered Internet Service Providers blind with respect to “the source, destination or ownership” of data packets, because ISPs would have been required to maintain a dumb pipe “in the carriage and treatment of Internet traffic.”

Instead, it appears that network neutrality proponents might have to content themselves with the compromise language of the Internet Consumer Bill of Rights, enshrined within Title IX of the CCBDA. The Bill of Rights would allow ISPs to maintain unfettered access to all lawful content, while also giving customers the option to subscribe to select applications and content services that are enhanced through higher transmission speeds.

While some may view Wednesday’s committee vote as a victory for Internet Service Providers, the network neutrality issue is not yet resolved. The Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act must still face a vote before the entire Senate, where some senators have vowed to attempt to hold up the legislation until strong neutrality provisions are included in its language.