Commentary: Net Neutrality – An Update, a Misnomer, and (Possibly) a Better Way
Understanding this distinction is essential to finding a path through the thickets of this debate to an actual solution, especially on Capitol Hill where most every net neutrality legislative option to date has been so broadly worded as to encompass all traffic going into a consumer’s home, without any consideration for the nature of that traffic.
We need to consider net neutrality as the two separate concepts it actually represents: network neutrality and internet neutrality.
Internet neutrality is a good thing. Network operators shouldn’t be allowed to control what people have access to over the open internet. We must preserve the vibrancy and openness of the internet in order to enable its continued evolution.
Network neutrality, on the other hand, is a bad thing. It will preclude the development of services such as HD streaming that demand mission-critical infrastructure or high levels of sustained throughput that the internet often does have trouble supporting. Plus, no matter what truth there might be in claims that the telcos already promised next-gen networks a decade ago and failed to deliver, full-blown network neutrality will undoubtedly slow down the rate of investment in next-gen networks, which is something the U.S. can’t afford as a country fighting to maintain prominence in an increasingly competitive global economy.
A Possible Solution
So what we must do is find a way to protect internet neutrality while maintaining the ability for network operators to have control over how they manage their networks, not an all-or-none solution.
Today, despite competition in the broadband space, consumers often don’t really know what they’re buying in terms of broadband access. They have no way of gauging whether or not a network operator’s squeezing traffic through their pipe, especially for any network that shares resources and only promises a best-effort service.
What we need is a set of "truth in advertising" regulations where network operators looking to sell a broadband product must include a minimum guaranteed level of access that will be available at all times. In other words, when you buy that service, you know that the speed at which you can access the internet will never go below a certain predetermined and clearly understood level.
Network operators would still be allowed to advertise their theoretical maximums, but they’d have to include some guaranteed minimum as well. This way, consumers could make more informed broadband purchasing decisions because they’ll have a better understanding of what they’re buying, and internet companies will gain certainty and clarity as to the minimum bandwidth they’ll have to work with when it comes to delivering internet-based services.
Hand-in-hand with these regulations should be an adjustment to the FCC’s standard for what defines a broadband product—currently set at 200Kbps—as it relates to this minimum guaranteed access. The new definition should be based on what people are actually doing online. In the streaming media space, 300Kbps has emerged as the baseline for broadband video, and that would be a good place to start. Then, if the necessary bandwidth was added on to also handle a VoIP call while surfing the internet and watching that 300Kbps video, we might arrive at a realistic minimum, which is most likely somewhere in the 300-750Kbps range.
Alongside this new regulation and definition of broadband should be tax breaks or other financial incentives to encourage network operators to increase their minimum guaranteed level over time, as well as strong language guaranteeing the priority of traffic being sent through this minimum guaranteed level of access.
While at first blush this proposal may look bad for the network operators, since it undermines their legacy business model, instead it’ll actually benefit them in a number of ways. For one, they’ll resolve the threat of net neutrality in a more manageable fashion than has been currently proposed. Secondly, they’ll be forced to deal with the realities of altering their business models to reflect the evolving nature of internet usage. And finally, they’ll be able to use this as an opportunity to introduce a new metric by which to sell internet speed, based not only on the maximum level offered but also the minimum level guaranteed.
In Summary
This proposal might not be the perfect answer, but at least it’s a solution that treads the lines between the all-or-none proposals currently on the table.
To push effectively for legislation that can protect the internet, net neutrality advocates have to recognize the realities of the situation from both points of view and try to be proactive in coming up with alternatives that accomplish their underlying mission. If the debate surrounding net neutrality continues the way it has been going, and is expressed using the same terms, there is little doubt that this issue will continue to impose itself as a legislative anchor on any and all Internet-related matters.
Related Articles
The case should help educate the public in the difference between bandwidth throttling and settlement-free peering.
17 Jun 2015