RSS
Email
Print
ShareNetwork Neutrality: Reconsidering Flat-Rate Internet Access
Posted by Dave Molta on October 20, 2009
Later this week, the FCC is expected to release details of a newly proposed policy addressing network neutrality. These rules, motivated primarily by a desire on the part of the Obama administration to encourage openness and innovation on the Internet, are also mired in intense political debate, some of it ideological but much of it driven by a corrupt system of campaign finance. Corporate donors are staking out their turf and finding compromise won't be easy.
Most tech savvy people understand that the purest form of net neutrality, in which "all packets are treated equally" is a practical impossibility in an era of converged time-sensitive network applications. On the other hand, only naive or disingenuous parties would suggest that a laissez-faire regulatory approach is appropriate for service providers, whose financial motivations and near-monopoly status drives their policies and practices. These are the same folks who believe AT&T blocked Skype on the iPhone because they were concerned about the potential negative impact on current customers. Right.
While much of the historical debate about net neutrality focuses on encouraging non-discriminatory practices amongst wireline Internet service providers, the most fascinating aspects of this debate revolve around wireless providers. On wired networks, performance is mostly an exercise in simple economics. If you want better service, you can throw money at the problem. The same is true of carriers. If we expect them to offer low-cost Internet access services, we have to give them license to manage these services in an appropriate manner.
Longing for the early days
The Curmudgeon
Do you remember Eternal September, when Usenet was crushed by pretenders? The gates were swung open, the n00bs rushed unbroken, and harmony was torn asunder.
That doesn't mean they should be able to make arbitrary decisions that prevent customers from accessing new services offered by Google or some other innovative cloud services provider, but it does mean that they may need to define and implement packet prioritization policies that sometimes adversely impact other companies. Here's a simple analogy: if a transportation company built a facility adjacent to your neighborhood that resulted in continuous congestion that impeded your car's access in and out of your neighborhood, would you stand up on the side of road neutrality?
This debate really gets interesting when we add mobility to the equation. Anyone who has tried to use an iPhone in Manhattan during peak usage periods understands the powerful reality that bandwidth on mobile networks is a scarce resource. I don't have much sympathy for AT&T, which has clearly oversubscribed its network. They understood the network load characteristics of the iPhone, which consumes bandwidth in inefficient ways. The company is licensing new spectrum and building out more cells, but it can't possibly keep up with increased demand.
Consumers tolerate this because they have no choice. We continue to pay AT&T $30/month for unlimited data service that often stinks like a dead fish. (Sorry for the graphic analogy, but I was thinking about a circa-2001 Network Computing cover story we did on carrier service level agreements, where the cover art showed an SLA being used to wrap up dead fish, like an old newspaper. That summed up the value of carrier SLA's in those days.)
Comment by UsenetReviewz on October 22, 2009 8:50 AM
Nice Article. Seems as if on the wireless spectrum there is only some much bandwidth available but when there is fiber involved well the potential really seems limitless.
You almost had me convinced but I feel like I already pay enough and deserve unlimited high speed downloads. :)
Anyways, nice article.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Richard on October 26, 2009 5:42 PM
The problem, of course, with metered usage for the user is lack of visibility provided by all operating systems (mobile or desktop) into bandwidth usage and hence costs (what app uses how much $, and how do I disable apps that I don't approve introducing costs for me) and being charged for traffic you don't want (Why should I pay for banner ads or spam?).
Customer's want predictable billing, not the $700 surprise bill when they thought they had a $49/month plan. International data roaming charges (which are metered) on iPhone make it essentially useless unless you're willing to pay $1000/week because the apps (e.g. Google Maps) are not designed assuming bandwidth is scarce and expensive. Many consumers already have bad experiences with overage charges from their cell phone provider and have no confidence the service providers won't develop a metered base system that maximizes their revenues rather than is fair to the customer. Switch to a metered system becomes a new exercise in maximizing "revenue per subscriber" on the part of the carrier.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mike Fratto on October 26, 2009 6:06 PM
I agree with you Richard. I don't see metered pricing being a starter for consumers for the very reasons you give.
No one except carriers want metered access.
I have spent this afternoon reading over the FCC proposed guidelines and I am going to post some thoughts tomorrow or Wednesday.
mike
Reply to this comment
Comment by Sean G on October 30, 2009 10:12 PM
Two or three years ago when smartphones were starting to emerge as a more common platform and 3G technologies like HSDPA and EVDO were being rolled out, those "in the know" pointed out that backhaul to carrier sites was limited for the emerging data technologies being placed on them. In a lot of cases, carrier sites were connected by T-1s or other bandwidth limited connections because, after all, the sites were designed for voice and limited data sites (think GPRS, EDGE, 1xRTT). Sprint, when it announced WiMAX, readily admitted at its launch press conference that backhaul from cellular sites would be a challenge for its WiMAX deployment to overcome.
Here we are later and we find bandwidth constraints on the cellular network due to the increased demand out there by users. Ya have to wonder, particularly in metro areas like NYC where there are many micro-cellular sites to upgrade, if what users face is a spectrum issue or if the "backhaul challenge" has finally come home to roost.
Reply to this comment
Comment by boom on March 9, 2010 11:33 AM
I agree with this."Most tech savvy people understand that the purest form of net neutrality, in which "all packets are treated equally" is a practical impossibility in an era of converged time-sensitive network applications."
Wireless
Reply to this comment