Net Neutrality Bandwagon Gathers Steam
It's good to see that all the braying within the blogosphere about the assault on net neutrality is finally starting to be picked up in the “real world”. CNet (hat tip to Rob Hyndman) has a story on how the American Association of Retired People, which represents 35 million members, has entered the fray by signing a letter urging senators to require net neutrality principles by law.
It's encouraging to see these kind of developments because so far the best-organized groups have been anti-net neutrality forces such as BellSouth and AT&T. It's only with new voices entering the conversation that consumers - and politicians in Washington - will realize the danger of the attack on net neutrality. Once you establish downstream tollgates, you instantly create a playing field that favours the network operators (that enforce and collect these fees) and companies that can afford to pay them. What happens to everyone else who can't afford - or refuses - to pay? What happens to innovation? For a good overview on the issues at play, check out columns by Click Z Network's Rebecca Lieb and The New Yorker's James Surowiecki.
In Canada, the net neutrality debate needs to be thrust into the spotlight. So far, the CRTC has taken a “hear no evil, see no evil” approach, which means that until someone thrusts an issue under its nose, the regulator won't consider it. There's a chance Vonage's complaint against Shaw's mysterious $10 a month QoS fee to ensure non-Shaw VoIP service works well will be the catalyst for a net neutrality debate but don't hold your collective breath.
The CRTC, however, has a pile of other issues to address such as whether the $10-billion local phone market should be deregulated. There's also a big telecom review happening that will release its recommendations next week, which could include changing the CRTC's mandate. In any event, Canada - in typical fashion - is lagging behind the net neutrality crowd. Don't be surprised if it suddenly wakes up to the problem when Bell or Telus quietly implement some kind of downstream tollgate.
Addendum: Just to be clear, I don't believe the net neutrality argument is cut and dry because the network operators need ways to get a return on their investment so they can innovate and make the “pipes” bigger and faster. The question is how do they do it in a way that still encourages innovation and competition. At this point in the broadband's market evolution, I still believe there is plenty of revenue to be generated from the “pull” side (a.k.a consumers) who have demonstrated a willingness to pay for multi-tier services (lite, basic and ultra-broadband) and value-added featues such as anti-spam and anti-virus. Why not focus on nurturing this side of the pipe/market before attacking net neutrality?
March 18th, 2006 at 9:46 am
We must not let the Telco’s dictate our viewing or download privileges. After all, we live in a democracy. If we allow them control of our download privileges, we can kiss competition out the door.
March 20th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
It's no a simple issue since it's not about speeds and feeds. When was the last time you were able to connect to any service that maximizes your advertized broadband speed? Other than BitTorrent and some other P2P apps the answer is that you've almost never been able to maximize your connection speed since the Internet and the servers which connect to it is a shared medium.
The real issue is not about speed but how the routing elements prioritize traffic. Gaming doesn't work better at 10 meg connections, it works better when there is less jitter. When a router receives a packet in its queue it can prioritize this 'inbox' to route packets that may benefit from less jitter first. While this hasno discernable effect on Web browsing and e-mail it means the world of difference to gaming. Do we sacrifice good service on the alter of 'net neutrality'?
What about attack traffic situations like DoS attacks against a subscriber? Sorry your phone and most other services don't work, we're network neutral…
What about when a subscriber — like most people reading this — doesn't realise the access connection consumption ramifications of getting video download or some less innocuous service? Sure I can wait an extra couple seconds for the Web page to download (hey, I'm getting an NCAA final four video feed here!) but why can't I dial 911?
It's about traffic prioritisation. The service provider should be able to prioritize the services they know about (like the ones they provide). How are they supposed to know that the encrypted flow going to your house is actually some sensitive service? Net neutrality means advanced services suck and network environmental conditions kill the connection. The real solution is to guarantee equal opportunity to traffic prioritisation.
/Stefan
thel0r4x@hotmail.com
March 20th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
The Neutrality issue is anything but cut and dried. The statement: “Defenders of “net neutrality†should be careful not to harm the very thing they want to protect” is the real key to this discussion. There is an awful lot of chatter going around about how the telecoms are trying to stick it to the little guy. I think there is nothing to that. By the way, the letter signed by AARP and others referenced above is hardly an incendiary call to arms.