Net Neutrality is Anything but Neutral

The Net Neutrality debate is just getting going here in the UK. The US has been engaged in it for some time – indeed, Google and Verizon have added combined in an attempt to influence the public debate in recent months. But what is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is a misnomer for a concept that isn’t neutral at all. Proponents of net neutrality argue that regulation or some sort of government intervention is a necessary requirement in order to ensure that the traffic on the Internet remains balanced. Effectively, people looking to log onto their email or view a YouTube video should be able to do that equally. The Internet traffic to one site shouldn’t take precedence over the Internet traffic to another.

At first and in theory, this might seem like a good idea. People will be able to access content from anywhere else in the world, at the same time, with the same ability. Fantastic. But what happens when (for example) a user buys a film on iTunes and wants to download it, and another customer who gets their connection to the Internet from the same company wants to log into and check their email?  Should both of these actions be treated equally?

The answer is no. More bandwidth is required to download a film than is required to check email. Network providers like BT, Verizon, TalkTalk, and AT&T know this. They also know that if they treat all network traffic equally, they are likely to have many angry customers who are accidentally disconnected from their internet just as their film finishes downloading.

The prioritisation of Internet traffic by companies is called ‘network management’. Companies who provide access to the Internet for their customers do this all time – and have done so since the early 1990s. Managing Internet traffic is complex, but in doing so companies can provide access for all their customers specifically when they need greater or lesser bandwidth. The end result is not often seen by customers unless network speed slows to a crawl or shuts down altogether.

Proponents of net neutrality claim that all Internet traffic needs to be treated equally so that the freedom and the spirit of the Internet are preserved. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web weighed in on this: “there are a lot of companies who would love to be able to limit what webpages you can see, and governments would love to be able to slow down information going down to particular sites”. He went on to say, “The moment you let net neutrality go, you lose the web as it is. You lose something essential – the fact that any innovator can dream up an idea and set up a website at some random place and let it just take off from word of mouth. You can end up helping humanity and make a profit out of it once you’ve got a domain name.”

Berners-Lee is usually right in all things Internet-related, but here he is wrong for a very simple reason: this would limit access to the Internet, because net neutrality is government regulation of the Internet.  Any government – or even the EU for that matter – would have to pass a series of laws and legislation limiting the commercial ability of public and private companies who provide Internet access. This means that the management of their own business for the benefit of their customers would be regulated by the government – and not by industry standards as it is today in the UK. Furthermore, customers who today can change Internet providers if they are receiving poor service or pay more for greater broadband would no longer be able to switch to a different provider because, effectively, all providers would have the same and equal quality of service. This is "equality" achieved by dragging everyone down to the same low level.

The Internet is free and open as it is – except when governments get involved. Look at China and Iran – "net neutrality" need never be a debate in those countries because their Internet is already regulated by the government. Let’s not call this debate "net neutrality" - because it is not.  Let’s call it net regulation. The Internet will be fine without government intervention, just as it has been so far. Just look at all of the entrepreneurs who have built businesses and created jobs and contributed to the growth of the economy.

By Dominique Lazanski

Comments

[Andrew Ampers Taylor]

Good heavens? An area without Government interference?

What a novel idea!

[Paul Gibbons]

Bit naive! Multinational corporations have always looked to make profits off the back of the little guy and if not kept in check the same will happen here. Once one company introduces layered services based on what you pay the rest will follow. Look at how mobile phone operators have acted in the past - only regulation has stopped them making "unreasonable" profits based on customers having little choice but to accept the things they offer.

Keeping the internet effectively neutral is something that will require regulation and the sooner it's addressed the better.

You are correct in the argument that providers need to prioritise services to ensure quality, but that should be where it ends. Offering prioritised services based on who's paying you for advertising or what level of service you pay for is just plain wrong.

[startledcod]

Paul Gibbons, you are missing a very important point; we are all free to switch to a different ISP to vary the price we pay or the service we receive, its called a free market.

I know that when I shop at Lidl I will not be getting the same as when I cross the threshold at Waitrose. Do you suggest Government regulation of food suppliers in pursuit of food neutrality? I happen to pay more for my internet connection because I want a very low contention ratio. Similarly I would pay more for my Sky subscription if I could get it commercial free.

There are precious few poor situations that would not be made worse by Government intervention and internet access is not one of them.

[guy herbert]

@ Paul Gibbons,

But the net routes around cartels, too. Free access is not access at low price. If you want controlled prices then you are actually on the side of controlled access - and the cartels, too, because compliance cost raises a barrier to entry.

[Purlieu]

one word - Australia

[startledcod]

@Purlieu. It is indeed one word but what does it mean? I am not conversant with the situation in Australia, please enlighten me ..............

[Andrew]

Mmmmmm, emotive journalism without through research. are you trying to bring a flavour of the vitriolic US debate to the UK?

[Dennis Jackson]

The problem with the ISP market is the same as the problem with the Mobile Network Market, it requires a large investment as the cost of infrastructure is incredibly high. This means the ISP market is not in essence, a free market. Until Government intervention in the Mobile Market, prices were astronomically high, in particular roaming charges, which are now capped.

For this reason, I feel that Government regulation of net neutrality is likely to be successful as it simply mandates that companies do not carry out filtering. This is equivalent to asking the government to ensure that our water is clean and our food uncontaminated, both worthy causes.

While I agree that Government Regulation should always be seen as a last resort and always carefully scrutinised, I feel this is a clear cut need for regulation.

[Tech Nerd]

No no noooo first learn what net neutrality is, and what it isn't, it is NOT about preventing basic QoS that every ISP does throughout the country, like shaping P2P traffic when gaming traffic is detected on the network for example.

Net neutrality is about stopping a rival company that's bribing an ISP from getting priority service over the same protocols as a competitor that doesn't believe in paying an ISP for a priority 'fast lane'

Net neutrality would also prevent an ISP setting up packages that block certain content until you pay to use the top premium package!

Look at how the Mobile Broadband packages are shaping up do we want this? HELL NO!

And to anybody that mentions government regulation of this, that's a good thing because the ISPs will only take bribes until the government outlaws the practice!

Also before anyone thinks of government blocking websites under this law, think Digital Economy Bill, that law alone allows website blocking amongst other controversial things! REPEAL IT! and DON'T OPPOSE GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF NET NEUTRALITY!

[alastair]

Dominique's article is entirely correct. Network management is necessary for the simple reason that some folks consume much more bandwidth than others, and without traffic shaping and other measures it would mean that they would dramatically and disproportionately impact the user experience for everyone else.

I would actually go further and say that it is the right of an ISP to decide what traffic is or is not permissible on that ISP's network. So if they want to stop BitTorrent traffic from working, fine. You can always switch to a different ISP (TalkTalk seems particularly pro-piracy, so I suggest people who want to steal stuff go there).

The Net Neutrality debate in the United States has consisted mainly of scaremongering about the possibility that one of the big ISPs (say Verizon) might decide to try to charge content providers (i.e. people who run websites) for providing different grades of service to Verizon's customers. This problem is, to date, for the Internet, entirely theoretical, though it is a very real issue on the telephone network and particularly on mobile networks.

The problem is that this issue has been conflated with ISPs legitimate network management needs, and in particular the pro-piracy community has been keen to promote this confusion because they don't want ISPs to impact on their ability to steal.

[Anon]

Tech Nerd is correct, and Dominique sadly does not understand the principle of net neutrality.

Under net neutrality it would be perfectly acceptable to give priority to realtime audio over, say, a large download. It is aiming to prevent large companies like Microsoft from paying ISPs to deliver *their* content faster than other companies. (Microsoft hasn't said they would, this is just an example). It is to prevent ISPs only displaying content from "partners" or in other way restricting what is available to us.

[Purlieu]

startledcod
in case google is not working
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/02/australias-internet-non-neutral-and-proud-of-it.ars

[Davis Jones]

Your case is primarily concerned with shaping the government-commercial relationship in a way that ensures that maximum quality of life is available for the netizens as a result of the public sector-private sector relationship. In your argument, you assert that with "managed connectivity" downloads could take priority which would increase the quality of life for some customers without really having an impact on others. I agree with your idea. I have tried to download a movie from iTunes many times and been frustrated by the speed of the download. My download should take priority, be sped up and encourage me to spend money to rent movies online. But your case overlooks the simple reality that the switching options are virtually non-existant for most customers.

This is particularly true in the United States outside the major metropolises. Here in Austin, for instance, there is really a duopoly of ISPs: Time Warner Cable and AT&T. Other than the two major ISPs, satellite internet access is available for significantly more money per month. In addition to AT&T and Time Warner having disproportionate control over the market, they also have considerations that are very unrelated to delivery of home-internet services. This concerns me because the company's revenue streams could dictate that the providers use their position as an ISP as leverage for some area of their business unrelated to their customer's access to email, Wikipedia, news-reading and surfing. It is very plausible that the major providers would obstruct access to the internet for their customers by (1) priority delivery of in-house sites (a major concern with Time Warner that has many media properties) (2) paid-for prioritization of certain sites (3) "toll-booth" style layered bandwidth access for faster speeds or bandwidth usage.

My conclusion is that at this time, the market for internet access still requires new entrants to make it closer to a perfectly competitive marketplace. Switching costs need to be brought down. For instance, both AT&T and Time Warner are very difficult to work with. This adds to switching costs for customers. More ISP options need to be made available to consumers at lower prices so that netizens can effectively punish bad ISPs. Satellite internet, mobile internet and public wi-fi networks will all help make the market for ISPs more competitive and less monopolistic. You are right that disallowing "managed access" of a firm's customers is harming the use of the internet's tools (like movie downloading), but the case you make here is ahead of its time. It will be a more appropriate argument in 10 years when the major ISPs do not have near-monopolies on the market and customers have more options.

[Name]

How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb? Three. One to change it while the other two argue about how old the old one is.

[Stephen]

From Dominique's profile:

"Dominique Lazanski spent over 10 years in the Internet industry with many of those years working in Silicon Valley. She has a long held interest in public policy and participatory government. She has written and spoken on digital issues over the years from a free market and entrepreneurial perspective. She holds degrees from Cornell University and the London School of Economics."

It is amazing to me that someone with a resume like that can be so spectacularly ignorant of what Net Neutrality actually is.

Please answer Tech Nerd's post or we will assume you are hiding your blushes from public view.

[Dominique Lazanski]

And why shouldn't companies 'pay for play' in a world where customers pay for more data or access across many different and non-technical services.

There are two issues here that are confused. One is that ISPs should be allowed to strike deals and do what they want with traffic management even if someone like Sky pays more to have their content prioritised.

The other issue is consumer protection. ISPs need to make sure that they advertise their broadband speeds and paid content prioritisation in good faith - just like any company does. False advertising is an issue across many service companies (I am thinking specifically of mobile phone operators). That is a separate issue from net neutrality and one that should not impact on business choices made by ISPs.

[five finger shoes]

Tech Nerd is correct, and Dominique sadly does not understand the principle of net neutrality.