* Limited-bandwidth mobile networks don't have to be unmanaged to be open
I was chatting with the GSM Association’s Director of Technology, Dan Warren, last week when the delicate subject of net neutrality came up. This is an issue that began in the wireline Internet business and has most recently reared its head in U.S. broadband economic stimulus discussions. Is it possible for the industry not to see the issue as a black-and-white one, but one that requires communications and compromise?
The reason the issue exists at all is that sophisticated deep packet inspection (DPI) and traffic shaping tools are now available to network operators who can use them to granularly manage network bandwidth. Traffic shaping involves assigning actions to traffic that has been classified into groups (based on any number of variables, such as application type, user, etc.) to guarantee a minimum bandwidth to it, prioritize it, or rate limit it.
Dan and I identified two primary net neutrality camps that exist:
* Those who believe that all traffic management controls are evil and will be used for the sole purpose to unfairly discriminate against competitors’ content, either by blocking, slowing down or charging more for that traffic. They say the Internet (and mobile Internet) can’t be free and open if such controls are used.
* Those who believe that traffic shaping is a capability needed by ISPs and, increasingly, mobile operators in today’s converged networks. Multiple traffic types with different resource requirements and characteristics share a common IP link. Enabling them all to run at their optimum performance levels simultaneously is un-doable without some traffic lights and stop signs.
Dan and I fall in the second camp, although obviously I’m “against” unethical or unlawful use of the tools (as I assume Dan is). It’s impossible to integrate session-oriented voice traffic, communications streaming, traditional data and bandwidth-hogging peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic on a common link and guarantee any kind of minimum service level if all traffic is sent, willy-nilly, in a best-effort manner. Let’s see what kind of experience users get in an environment of YouTube and sexy new multimedia iPhone applications if bandwidth isn’t managed with some thought to per-application resource requirements and behavior.
Over-provisioning bandwidth helps with some applications but isn’t a comprehensive answer. Aside from being economically less than ideal (and simply not always available in mobile networks), more bandwidth can’t address certain application behavior. Left unmanaged, P2P, for example, can grow to consume an entire link as long as it needs it, starving out all other application traffic in the meantime. It doesn’t have to be blocked, but it can be limited to a certain rate or to a percentage of the entire available bandwidth, just as voice can be assigned a minimum level of nailed-up bandwidth so that all sessions can live in harmony and the user experience doesn’t disintegrate.
At issue: Will the carriers use these tools to unfairly control the traffic they can now recognize and classify?
I know that President Obama’s basic position is in favor of net neutrality, a term often used synonymously with a “free and open Internet.” But we don’t necessarily have to have net neutrality OR a closed and discriminatory Internet. Sure, any technology that has been invented for positive purposes can also be used for nefarious ones. Perhaps we should take a page from President Obama’s playbook and get the two sides talking. Maybe there’s a way to overcome the lobbying from two distinct camps, pull people into a room, and work on a compromise that rewards ethical behavior on the part of network operators.
And, as I’m sure President Obama would agree, it won’t happen overnight. But let’s at least start chipping away at it.
