I prefer to emphasize the need for non-discriminatory service,
providing access to internet services on equal terms for all
application providers and especially consumers. Does this mean that
the access provider cannot charge more for larger capacity? No, I
think it is reasonable for a consumer and application provider to pay
more for higher capacity (preferably measured in maximum bits/second,
not measured in volume of bytes transferred). Access providers who
impose limits based on total bytes transferred (e.g. per month) do not
really reflect the constraints on their system's capacity. the
capacity limit has to do more with the rate of data transfer than with
the volume. Bits per second, not bytes per month. If applications
require distinct classes of service (e.g. low latency), I think it is
quite permissible to offer such services. But, as Lauren argues, I
think these options must be equally available to all application
service providers and consumers. This does not require that all
packets be treated equally. It does require that all users be provided
equal access to such preferential services. I agree with Lauren's
point that the provider of access services (especially broadband, by
whatever definition we end up for "broadband") not discriminate
against competing application providers by favoring the access
provider's services over those of competitors. In rough terms, this
means that the underlying Internet access should be equally accessible
among competitors.
The rationale for this treatment is to maintain the open networking
effect that allows new application providers to introduce new
applications without discrimination, thereby maintaining an ecosystem
that is friendly to innovation. I hope you will note that the proposal
above does not prohibit access providers from responding to denial of
service attacks or managing congestion. I also allows them to offer
differentiated services but in such a way that competing application
providers are not disadvantaged merely because they are not the
providers of access facilities.
A key question is when differentiated access services become
discriminatory. If we are unable to define this point clearly, then
another option in legislation is to provide for a process in which
anti-competitive and discriminatory access practices can be
adjudicated. Of particular concern is that users of the Internet have
the freedom to choose what application providers they wish to use
without discrimination or interference by the access providers.
vint
On Aug 30, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
Thanks for proving the point, Lauren. From your LA Times article:
"Network operators want to set priorities for users, rather than
letting all data flow freely and equally.
"At the same time, a pay-for-play system would create a tier of
"super providers" that enjoy a competitive edge over rivals that
lack the resources for speedier service. This also would make it
harder for entrepreneurs to even enter the market.
""You're essentially ghettoizing Internet content that cannot pay to
play," said Scott at Free Press."
That's the argument for "all packets are equal" in black and white.
RB
[ No Richard, you're misprepresenting the argument. Nobody of note
that I know of on the "network neutrality" side of current debates
is saying that customers should be able to buy OC-192 speeds for
the same price as a consumer DSL line, nor that time-sensitive
payloads (like VoiP) shouldn't be able to have appropriate
priorities over, say, conventional browsing. But the question is,
do all comers have access to these facilities at a competitive
price and on equivalent terms, or do the ISPs favor their own
content and services and those of their partners?
The dominant carriers, most of whom now have highly valuable
content (mostly video) that they want to deliver "out of band" in
relation to other traffic, are also the ones who are able to
arbitrarily set the pricing, TOSes, restrictions, and virtually all
other parameters for access services which allow for competition
with these ISPs' own content. Bandwidth caps, which would only
affect external Internet traffic (including all Internet video
competitors) but not cable-company provided video fed (via the
same protocols in most cases) on the companies' own video on
demand and pay per view systems, are an obvious example of
the problem.
In other words, in the absence of reasonable regulation, the major
ISPs not only may have a direct conflict of interest in terms of
content, but also control all the balls relating to the ability of
potential content and service competitors to compete in terms of
speed and pricing.
With the appeals court ruling a couple of days ago voiding the FCC
rule limiting the size of the giant cable companies, this
situation can only be expected to become far worse in an
unregulated Internet access ecosystem.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
- - -
Lauren Weinstein wrote:
"We can't be neutral on net neutrality"
"The snooze-worthy phrase is about something vital to all: whether
the
companies that control the pipes through which data flow can dictate
terms to the websites that originate the data ..."
Full Article (8/30/09):
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus30-2009aug30,0,3436552.column
--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
