It seems to me that the answer to two of the key, interrelated debates in technology policy - net neutrality and the viability of generativity - hinge on the same question: are users capable of protecting the important values of the Internet?

In his smart new paper on net neutrality, Tim Lee describes the Internet’s end-to-end principle as a durable quality. By analyzing the status of the ISP market, he concludes that “network owners are likely to find deviations from the end-to-end principle unprofitable.” One of the chief restraints on ISPs who would seek to discriminate traffic is “an army of tech-svvy users who rapidly develop and disseminate counter-measures and workarounds.” He uses the example of Digg and instant messaging protocols to show that users represent a powerful force against firms who act against their interests. Even in the absence of a competitive marketplace, Tim argues that technical means and public relations interests will allow users to support the end-to-end principle without formal regulation (and its unintended consequences).

Similarly, Adam Thierer (who blogs with Tim at TLF), believes that Jonathan Zittrain’s fears for the future of the Internet are overblown. In fact, Adam argues that there is more generativity now than at any time before. The immediacy of the technical community to jailbreak iPhones, one of Zittrain’s leading examples of contingently generative information appliances, demonstrates to Adam that generativity is alive and well. Where companies seek to lock-down devices, users will free them and impose generativity.

Both Tim and Adam place great faith in users’ ability to protect the values of net neutrality and generativity. As firm libertarians, their belief in individual power should come as no surprise. At times, however, I worry that the protection of these values will fall disproportionately on the tech-savvy few and that the benefits will not be spread to the vast majority.

I have, depending on your point of view, the benefit or detriment to go to a school of a mostly non-technical leaning. Although my program of study focuses on the intersection of science, technology and international affairs, most of my friends and peers are more interested in less technical subject matter. Although it makes starting a Students for Free Culture chapter a lonely affair, it gives me the chance to see how the vast majority of the world interacts with the Internet and technology in general.

Although Adam, Tim and I may, for example, be comfortable encrypting our traffic to scuttle discriminatory ISP management, even simple, user-friendly approaches to civic technology are unlikely to draw the attention of non-technical sorts. Defaults have great power and it takes a lot to motivate people to change them. If Comcast inhibits BitTorrent traffic or iPhone limits user-contributions, my belief is that these policies will represent a major barrier. The additional transaction costs of jailbreaking and iPhone and the constant battle against bricking is more than most people will stand for; they’ll simply live in a non-generative world.

Now, there are examples of trickle down and mass rebellion. Tim does a nice job in “The Durable Net” of exploring these and does the most to bring me closer to faith in lay users. He cites the Digg rebellion against censorship and the fight for open IM protocols. But in my observation, very few non-technical folks use Adium or the other IM unifiers. In fact, iChat and AIM are dominant defaults. As for the Digg example, the users of Digg tend to be technically inclined and the cost of posting a hex code and pushing “Digg” are so minimal that, yes, even my mother could do it (though I doubt she would).

It is possible that the select few will be motivated enough to free their own iPhone or create tools to detect violations of the end-to-end principle, but I worry that the critical mass will not be reached. Although 40% of Saudis are disturbed by Internet censorship, I’d be willing to bet that 40% do not nor can they make use of Tor or Psiphon or the other anti-censorship technologies. These are the people who would suffer from a non-generative, non-neutral future if the technical few do not successfully defend their interests.

I’m mostly thinking out loud, so I’d love to hear your thoughts: are users capable of protecting their interests?

Update: Tim convincingly argues for the stability of open systems, especially the Internet.