Jimtac.com

Recently there has been a renewed focus on the debate over “Net Neutrality”. The new head of the FCC in the U.S. has officially brought forth the proposal to change the existing informal “behavioral suggestions” into actual regulatory policy with some teeth to them, as well as adding a couple of new ones.

The current ISP landscape includes a lot of secrecy in how the traffic is managed (or shaped), which allows the control of speed/priority/access of traffic on their networks. The main problem with this, is that other than different protocols, bits are all the same as far as the network hardware and software are concerned, it’s only the people in charge of companies operating these networks who are making a distinction based on the content being transmitted.

The way people are using the Internet these days, shows an enormous increase in rich media services (HD video, Internet television, remote file sharing/backups, etc). These are the services that many ISPs claim are “different” kinds of bits, when in actual fact it really is not, it’s just a fact that there are so many more packets needed to send this data.

To illustrate one of the possible problems with a lack of network neutrality regulation, I have a small scenario: Imagine visiting your favorite video website one day only to find that everything takes twice as long to load as the previous day, and everyone that you know on your ISP are having the same issue, while your neighbor who has a different ISP does not, all with no explanation. When you call up your ISP and get past the initial “we reserve the right to limit any traffic that affects our network” line, you eventually find out that your favorite website’s agreement with your ISP to provide unimpeded access to you, has expired, and the connection to/from your ISP has been artificially degraded pending re-negotiation of the agreement.

This for all intents and purposes amounts to website blackmail, where low-traffic sites get free passes, but big sites who supposedly have money to pay, would have to do just that in order to provide a service. Another scenario would be where services deemed to be in competition with the ISP’s other revenue streams (TV, telephony, etc.), are simply denied access to the network all together, or degraded to the point where they are effectively unusable, in an effort to drive subscribers towards using the ISP’s other services.

This is not to say that there is some nefarious conspiracy going on between companies, but it does make sense in a strict cost/benefit analysis. If you can charge more, or limit usage only by modifying your terms of service, then an increase in the cost of operation is kept to a minimum. If you force people to monitor (and therefor limit) their own bandwidth usage by way of including asterisks and fine print, then you limit the requirement to expand/advance your network… Brilliant economically speaking, but this is only a stalling technique which most ISPs have begun to move past as customer demand for increased speed. As well a lack of brand loyalty has led to a “speed race” between local providers. This shift in customer perception has led to a dramatic scramble for new ideas to monetize providing internet access.

—

This brings us to the heart of the Net Neutrality debate in relation to how this affects ISPs. As I had mentioned previously, the curtain on how the ISP networks control the flow of traffic is currently threatened with being tossed to the way-side, and to any business giving up secrecy can be a scary loss of control which has been so tightly held.

To me, any type of secrecy surrounding services that you are paying for, especially one that has become such an integral part of modern life as the internet, is a very anti-consumer thing.

NETWORK MANAGEMENT:

I understand that there is a need to manage network traffic, if for no other reason, than to ensure that all of the customers can access the service. However I strongly feel that these management techniques should be transparent. If streets are clearly marked, and traffic signs abound, you know how you can safely get around a city; the same can be said for clear network management policies. People wouldn’t put up with their local municipality closing a road to a local business park with no explanation, or telling you that your car was no longer allowed to drive the streets because of the music that you were listening to.

In a world of transparent network management there would be a requirement to not only be upfront with how shaping of netwok traffic is being done, and by what policy, but also to notify customers of a change in that management scheme. It also means that consumers can make an informed choice as to whether or not to choose one provider over another.

DEVICES AND SERVICES:

Another big chunk of the Net Neutrality debate (similar to network management), is one of restricting legal devices, and services on a network. An example of this would be if a Telco decided to restrict a VoIP service such as Skype on their network in order to protect their voice services. Another would be if the a cable company decided to restrict the usage of a device like a Roku box for streaming HD content over the internet instead of purchasing a CATV bundle. Also cases involving a provider saying that you can’t connect your game console or brand of PC, because of some arbitrary choice.

New rules would strictly prohibit an ISP from blocking access to legal devices and services. However, if there is a device detected that is attempting to circumvent laws, prevent others from conducting lawful activities, or to harm the operation of the ISP’s network; then the ISP still would retain the right to cut off access to that device.

TIERED ACCESS:

Probably the most confusing issue in the Net Neutrality debate is the one over Tiered Access. The problem is that we have become used to tiered speeds in our internet access, which is quite different than what the tiering being talked about here is. In this case the tiers are in regards to access to content and services on the internet. With this kind of tiered system, an ISP could potentially charge you an additional fee to connect your game console as part of a “gaming” package, or even when your PC opens a known game related port, just like tiers of cable tv packages. Also on the other end a company that provides a service (like XBOX Live) could be charged a fee to allow access to the ISP’s network, on top of the what that company is paying to their own ISP, and what is being paid to the ISP by the end user.

That would be like Ford having to pay a tax to allow their vehicles access to a highway, then again to allow said vehicle onto surface streets at each city that vehicle is driven to; all the while the gas tax is collected from the driver at the pump every time they fill up on top of the cost of the gas, and the purchase of the vehicle.

Ultimately I feel that when it comes to the internet, all bits should be treated equally, regardless of which website they come from. Currently there are speed limits imposed by ISPs, which is how they charge end users more for access, as well there are download caps in place for pretty well all internet access. While I would like my “unlimited” internet access to actually be unlimited, it looks like the solution will probably end up being us going back to the days of hard download caps being king.

While these rules may not be currently proposed here in Canada by the CRTC (Canada’s FCC), I’m hopeful because, generally when the U.S. adopts as a policy, especially in regards to telecommunication, it becomes an example which tends to spread. I’m all for a good policy spreading for once.