The issue of net neutrality has kept users and providers alike on collective toes for some time now, with both sides posing arguments both for and against it. Regular users, meanwhile, seem very much for net neutrality, and a recent comment period opened up by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC (News - Alert)) around the topic proved that quite conclusively, as the sheer amount of commentary around the topic reached not only record numbers, but occasionally crippled the infrastructure designed to receive said comments.

The FCC reportedly received a record number of comments—fully three million total—around the topic of Internet traffic rules. The FCC's current plan called for, essentially, a two-way street in terms of burden; while Internet service providers (ISPs) couldn't block users' access to websites or applications, ISPs would be permitted to charge content companies to allow for faster delivery of content, assuming the deals in question were considered “commercially reasonable,” though by whom wasn't quite so clear.

A large amount of comment turned against this concept, decrying what would amount to the creation of “fast lanes” and “slow lanes” on the Web, a development no one much wanted to see. Spurred on by a host of sources, ranging from several websites engaging in artificial slowdowns to television and online commenters like John Oliver suggesting viewers join the fight, the FCC's systems faced an overwhelming quantity of comments, more than doubling the previous record in the wake of Janet Jackson's now-infamous “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl. Reports suggest that there's no deadline for the FCC to set its rules, and that a formal vote likely won't take place until November.

The FCC's head, chairman Tom Wheeler (News - Alert), has expressed a desire to set rules as quickly as possible. Reports suggest the outcry has been sufficient to get Wheeler to reconsider the entire “pay-for-priority” concept, as well as having the FCC consider turning ISPs into entities that are regulated like public utilities, a concept about as beloved by advocacy groups as it is hated by ISPs.

The Internet's explosion in popularity and availability has brought with it a great many challenges in terms of access. Gone are the days when most of the Internet was text-based with a few pictures for variety and with it the ability to reasonably access by standard phone connection rates. Between online gaming and streaming video, video conferencing and collaboration tools, we're using the Internet more than ever for work and play alike. But while the demand for access only increases, the ability to provide it is limited. ISPs must be able to make profit, or there's no call to even perform in that market; ISPs don't operate out of altruism. Yet it's not hard to see operations like Google Fiber in the market without bandwidth caps and with high-speed services and wonder how anyone else can cry poverty in such a field. Perhaps the solution here lies in greater diversity; maybe ISPs need to open up search engines and other fields like Google (News - Alert) has, allowing less importance to be put on just how much money the connection makes. Maybe the “public utility” concept has some merit, perhaps more merit than charging websites to deliver content.

It's a difficult issue to work around, and one way or another things will likely change before it's all said and done. But will things change for the better? Only time will tell if that proves to be the case.