Reader Forum: Net neutrality – all about the consumer

Editor’s Note: Welcome to our weekly Reader Forum section. In an attempt to broaden our interaction with our readers we have created this forum for those with something meaningful to say to the wireless industry. We want to keep this as open as possible, but maintain some editorial control so as to keep it free of commercials or attacks. Please send along submissions for this section to our editors at:dmeyer@ardenmedia.comor tford@ardenmedia.com.
The net neutrality debate needs to return to its virtuous origins: delivering the best Internet experience for consumers. Instead, today’s discussion often centers around an academic exercise about the hypothetical scenarios communications service providers could impose on subscribers. The latter approach ignores the economics of good business and Internet innovation, which ultimately are in consumers’ best interests.
Dispelling the evil operator myth
Some of the early discussions around network neutrality involved the notion that operators would indiscriminately block traffic, and this would negatively impact the consumer and innovation of new services and applications on the Internet. The reality is, some of these practices actually did transpire, and ultimately led to the suspicion of operators and the roots of network neutrality.
But the intention of some of these practices, such as blocking peer-to-peer traffic, was actually for what many would deem a good purpose, not a part of some nefarious plan to abuse the consumer and stifle innovation. P2P traffic was clogging the upstream bandwidth in many networks, causing bottlenecks which degraded the service for the majority of subscribers. By blocking P2P traffic, the operator was able to actually improve the upstream bandwidth for the majority of subscribers in their network.
However, some net neutrality advocates have argued that regulation is necessary because without it, operators will ultimately abuse their power and would either block applications that compete with their own, such as video, or hold the access ransom. If we lived in a world lacking competition for Internet access, one might envision such a scenario. However, we live in a world of choices, and more choices are available to us now than even five years ago. In many places, you can choose cable, DSL or even fiber. If you don’t like fixed access, you can go the mobile route, as many consumers in Europe do. All of the U.S. mobile carriers offer 3G services, and with LTE around the corner, one will have access to even more bandwidth.
If an operator were to block popular content in an effort to drive consumers to their own services, the consumer can choose to move to a different provider. Consumer-unfriendly practices will drive customers away. Operators stay in business if their customers are happy. As a result, they will tend not to do things that hurt, and will gain customers if they can provide them with the services the consumer wants. So while hypothetical situations demonstrate net neutrality concerns, the reality of a dynamic market place will be the primary reason why some of these examples do not apply in a real world environment.
As we said in comments to the Federal Communications Commission, our experiences with service providers do not support the notion that they “are intent on nefarious practices based on the exercise of market power over the market for broadband Internet access or the editorial control of content.” Although technologies can theoretically be used for such purposes, the majority of the focus in the operators’ networks have centered around improving the user experience and service delivery for the overall set of subscribers by actively managing the network resources.
Service providers strive to attract and retain subscribers, while of course making a profit, so they can further innovate, create new services and improve their networks. Assumptions to the contrary are unfounded in our experience and make no sense to growing operators’ businesses.
True neutrality eliminates innovation and quality
The premise of net neutrality is noble and has good intentions: that all bits should be treated the same, that all should have access to anything on the Internet, and operators should not have any control or say into what consumers can or cannot do. The consequence of restrictive laws, however, could have some severe unintended consequences. The fact is that non-discrimination of traffic would thwart Internet progress, degrade service and leave operators incapable of meeting future broadband needs. The quality of subscribers’ broadband experiences would be at the mercy of the state of network congestion, and a small minority of subscribers who use the majority of network resources could make service unacceptable for the remaining majority.
Services consumers have come to expect, like high-definition television, video on demand and voice over IP, will suffer if all packets are treated the same. People have taken for granted that their video quality is good on their TV, or their voice quality is good when they make a call. The majority of these services today depend on the ability to discriminate bits. These services are delivered over the same “Internet pipe,” and in order to ensure quality, operators have had to discriminate those bits. Without the ability to discriminate different types of applications, the network would deliver all bits the same way, thus negatively impacting the service quality for many applications we take for granted today.
Looking ahead, beneficial services and business models may never be pursued because net neutrality could make them illegal. Net neutrality could negatively impact the ability for the following types of services to be ever realized:
–Offering a tier which enables subscribers to view their video content in high definition.
–Offering a tier which enables a parent to block adult content from their child’s online surfing or mobile phone.
–An ability to momentarily accelerate a download of an important file or movie before a long plane or car ride.
–An airline offering business and first class passengers free roaming minutes or megabytes for select destinations.
–An online backup paying for a high bandwidth upstream data channel for its subscribers in order to differentiate its service from that of its competitors.
–A shipping carrier sharing temperature and other sensor data into wireless-enabled shipping containers with varying levels of latency.
In short, the long-term consequence is that we could be stuck with the status quo – or worse – without giving subscribers new choices or better services. Do we really think that today’s service offerings, and today’s 3G and FIOS networks are the best the Internet can ever offer?
Re-focus on the consumer
By getting to the essence of the original net neutrality goal – what’s best for consumers – both sides can find middle ground.
We believe that the complexities of managing Internet traffic require operators to have a foundation of differentiating traffic on the basis of quality of service, bandwidth allocation, application types, and other criteria. This also enables consumers to benefit from the inevitable evolution of Internet services and content, understanding that what’s new today will be commonplace in the near future and require traffic adjustments.
At the same time, we agree that transparency is important. Consumers need to know what they’re buying and what the terms and conditions of their agreements mean for broadband speed, cost and availability. Just as service providers have a duty to maximize their networks, they also have a duty to inform consumers about how their approach will affect subscriber experiences.
We believe that regulatory changes should be narrowly tailored nondiscrimination regulations that preclude particularly harmful practices,
such as censorship (unless requested by subscribe
rs, such as parental controls) or the provision of anti-competitive favoritism by operators with third parties.
Broad traffic discrimination or service categorization will make consumers suffer and will push the U.S. behind other nations for technological changes and innovation. The result would be inefficient use of scarce resources and a delayed pace of development for the next generation of wireless services for consumers.