The real issues behind the 'Net neutrality debate
Dear Vorticians,
The issue of 'Net neutrality has been in the news of late, as Congress looks to revamp the nation's communications laws - with a primary focus on making it easier for the big telcos to offer television services in competition with the cable companies.
Most of the major media outlets have carried stories, opinion pieces and polls on the topic of 'Net neutrality, as senior executives from the Internet companies like Google debate senior executives from the communications world. Network World is no different. This week, for example, we have an excellent debate on the issue of 'Net Neutrality that pits Cisco's Senior Managing Director of Global Advanced Technology Policy Robert Pepper, a former FCC chief of policy development, against Gigi Sohn, the president and founder of Public Knowledge, a public interest advocacy group. You can start with Vortician Pepper's presentation here.
We also have a very lively forum on the topic that's being moderated by David Isenberg, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, and Scott Cleland, well-known telecom analyst and chairman of NETcompetition.org, which represents telecom and wireless companies. You can put your two cents in here.
The heart of the debate: The Google camp claims no one should get preferential treatment on the Web, while the telco types claim they need to strike preferential deals with content purveyors to ensure quality delivery of all their videos and songs so they can recoup their network investments.
Both sides are right. But, more important it seems to me, both are missing the point. It seems like the whole country is.
No one should be discriminated against on the Web. Amen. Service providers shouldn't be able to strike sweetheart deals that favor their own subsidiaries, partners or pals over other Web companies. (Isn't the FCC already supposed to protect us against that?)
But service providers must be able to strike deals for preferential treatment.
How's that, John? Isn't that oxymoronic?
Not at all. The service providers own both ends of the pipe - the one that links Google to the Web and the one that links me to the Web so I can query Google. If Google or I want faster, better, higher quality service, we should have to pay for it. If Google or I want more capacity or support for certain quality of service characteristics, we should pay more. (And Google can afford it better than I, that's for sure.) That gives the service providers an incentive to build out their networks. And that's different from AT&T or Comcast cutting a deal for special treatment for Google over, say, Yahoo!.
That seems so obvious. We don't need laws and regulations to enforce what should be a logical economic arrangement between the providers and consumers of Internet access. Easy, right? So, what's the problem?
Two things.
First, service providers don't have the power today to get Internet customers to pay more for what they use. On the content producer side, companies like Google wield incredible market muscle and they're going to pay as little as possible for telecom services. Heck, they may even go build their own network (And they need legal protection?)
When it comes to end users, all-you-can-eat is the standard pricing model. The service providers haven't had much success creating premium services, beyond simple tiers of bandwidth, and they don't seem to try very hard to control those Web pigs who gobble up video and music by the megabyte over their cheap cable or DSL connections.
Now, I can understand the telcos struggling with this, but I can't figure out why cable companies aren't better at charging premiums - after all, that's their bread and butter in the television world. You want The Sopranos? Deadwood? Huff? You gotta pay. You want to see some porn? You gotta pay. Why can't they get cable Internet users to pay more for higher quality/higher speed access?
Internet access has become a commodity on both ends of the pipe and we've created the belief that cheap broadband is a God-given right. That needs to change.
Second problem: It's not even clear that service providers can do much of anything preferential. Analyst Robin Layland wrote an excellent Opinion piece for Network World questioning whether the tools the service providers have at their disposal are anything more than blunt instruments of QoS that provide little meaningful traffic differentiation. You can read that piece here.
So, in light of these two problems, what would Congress fix? How would 'Net neutrality legislation do anything beyond further skewing the economic dynamics that ought to be controlling the marketplace today? Talk about blunt instruments. Anyone remember the '96 Telecom Act. We're still cleaning up.
Let's allow the invisible hand to sort out this issue.
Your thoughts?
Bye for now.
Back to Vortex Blog
Comments
http://filmy-z-shemal.lolek.pl | filmy z shemal | [url]http://filmy-z-shemal.lolek.pl[/url]
Posted by: levan on July 25, 2006 06:56 AM
Post a comment
