{"id":4273,"date":"2006-03-04T14:38:22","date_gmt":"2006-03-04T14:38:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.tmcnet.com\/blog\/rich-tehrani\/e-commerce\/is-net-neutrality-enforceable.html"},"modified":"2006-03-04T14:38:22","modified_gmt":"2006-03-04T14:38:22","slug":"is-net-neutrality-enforceable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.tmcnet.com\/blog\/rich-tehrani\/voip\/is-net-neutrality-enforceable.html","title":{"rendered":"Is ‘Net Neutrality’ Enforceable?"},"content":{"rendered":"

TMCnet\u2019s Patrick Barnard sent me a blog entry as this doesn\u2019t pass as an article in its current form. Pat doesn\u2019t have a blog at the moment so I figured I would post it for him. There are some thought-provoking ideas here and I hope this post stimulates a debate on the issues below.<\/p>\n

What really makes this post valuable is that many CLECs accused the LECs of underhanded behavior that caused them to fail. What the LECs were accused of doing often times were not easy to prove. So there is an analogy here. Take a read. I hope you like it.<\/p>\n

——-<\/p>\n

By <\/font>PATRICK BARNARD<\/font><\/a>
TMCnet Associate Editor<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been reading, studying, and thinking a lot about the \u201cnet neutrality\u201d issue \u2013 in particular Sen. Ron Wyden\u2019s Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006, which he introduced yesterday.<\/p>\n

I might be wrong, but I think there\u2019s a point that\u2019s become lost in all of the debate: \u201cNet neutrality\u201d is already dead. As far as I\u2019m concerned, it died with the advent of packetized data. In other words, the minute network operators were able to prioritize the flow of data across the Internet, via \u201cpacket prioritization,\u201d true \u201cnet neutrality\u201d was no more.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not saying that the Bells\u2019 proposal to create a second tier of the Internet \u2013 and then allowing them to charge content and service providers access fees to use it \u2013 is appropriate. I agree with the opponents who say that everyone, everywhere, should have unfettered access to all that the Web has to offer. I\u2019m just saying let\u2019s back up a little here. Is the Internet, as it operates today, really, truly \u201cneutral?\u201d I\u2019m not convinced of that.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, as I\u2019m about to point out, there is no way to police the Internet to ensure that it is \u201cneutral\u201d anymore anyway. During a conference call with reporters yesterday, Sen. Wyden said his bill would require \u201cstrict enforcement\u201d to ensure that network operators adhere to the rules. But just exactly who<\/i> will enforce the Internet to make sure everyone is playing by the rules of \u201cnet neutrality?\u201d It seems to me that at least some<\/i> of his proposed legislation is unenforceable.<\/p>\n

Sen. Wyden\u2019s proposed bill states that network operators \u201cshall not interfere with, block, degrade, alter, modify, impair, or change any bits, content, application or service transmitted over the network of such operator.\u201d I can see how blocking, modifying and altering might be enforceable \u2013 but interfering and impairing? Aren\u2019t these really subjective terms \u2013 particularly when looking at packet prioritization? How can anyone possibly enforce \u201cinterfering\u201d and \u201cimpairing\u201d when there are billions, if not trillions of packets traversing the Internet everyday? Who\u2019s going to check? Furthermore, how do consumers know whether the data their receiving on their computers, televisions and telephones has been \u201cinterfered with,\u201d or whether it\u2019s been \u201cimpaired?\u201d By the same token, how will service and content providers know that their data is being delivered to each and every customer in the best (i.e. high priority) manner?<\/p>\n

You might say that the service and content providers, as well as the consumers, are the ultimate \u201cenforcers\u201d – in other words, they are the final line of defense in upholding the tenets of \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d If the content doesn\u2019t come through properly on the user\u2019s end, then that will result in complaints \u2013 either from the service providers, the users, or both \u2013 right? But as I said before, consumers can\u2019t tell whether the packets they are receiving have been properly \u201cprioritized\u201d – so, in the absence of these complaints, who will be responsible for policing the Internet to make sure network operators aren\u2019t \u201cdegrading\u201d signals \u2013 even to the slightest of degrees?<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s my lame analogy: My ear can\u2019t tell the difference between music played back via the MP3 format and music played back from a CD. Yet I know that the CD provides a superior format for the delivery of audio signals (it\u2019s just that the human ear can\u2019t detect the difference). But if went to the store and bought a bunch of CDs, only to learn later that they were bogus copies burned using the MP3 format, I\u2019d feel pretty gypped, wouldn\u2019t you?<\/p>\n

See my point? Just because you\u2019re getting the signal \u2013 whether its voice, video or otherwise \u2013 how can you be sure that you\u2019re really getting the whole<\/i> signal? How do you know for sure that it hasn\u2019t been \u201cdegraded?\u201d How do you know that there aren\u2019t a lot of missing packets? The truth is, most people can\u2019t tell.<\/p>\n

The real question here is, under Wyden\u2019s proposed bill, is just getting<\/i> the data to the customer good enough? (I know \u2013 I\u2019ve inextricably linked QoS to the issue of net neutrality \u2013 and perhaps that\u2019s wrong.) While it\u2019s true that the main purpose of packet prioritization is to conserve bandwidth (while at the same time delivering quality signals), it seems to me that it also comes in direct conflict with the whole issue of \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wyden\u2019s bill states that network operators must \u201ctreat all data traveling over or on communications in a non-discriminatory way.\u201d The problem with this, in my opinion, is that network operators already have the ability to discriminate, via packet prioritization. In fact, they\u2019ve already been discriminating – to their advantage – for years.<\/p>\n

Wyden\u2019s bill, however, does go so far as to explain how enforcement might take place. For one thing, it requires network operators to \u201cpost and make available for public inspection, in electronic form, and in a manner that is transparent and easily understandable, all rates, terms and conditions for the provision of any communications.\u201d<\/p>\n

But wait a minute. Isn\u2019t that like putting a mouse in charge of guarding the cheese? Why should we trust them to provide us with this information?<\/p>\n

Perhaps more importantly, the bill gives power to the Federal Communications Commission to hear complaints on a \u201cprima facie\u201d basis \u2013 and places the burden on the network operator to show that it did not violate any \u201cnet neutrality\u201d laws.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s fine \u2013 providing the FCC has the resources (i.e. the technical expertise) to determine if a violation did, in fact, take place. (And won\u2019t network operators, in at least some cases, be able to conveniently \u201chide\u201d any violations they may have committed with regard to signal quality?)<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s another thing I don\u2019t get: Wyden\u2019s bill says network operators can do what is needed to protect their networks \u2013 but at the same time it doesn\u2019t say they can adjust them as needed, via packet prioritization, to preserve bandwidth. The bill states that a network operator \u201cshall not discriminate in favor of itself or any other person, including any affiliate or company with which such operator has a business relationship in (a) allocating bandwidth and (b) transmitting content or applications or services to or from a subscriber in the provision of a communications.\u201d So what happens if a network becomes overrun with an outside service provider\u2019s content, to the point where other data can\u2019t make it through? Does the network operator have to just \u201csit there and take it?\u201d<\/p>\n

Maybe there\u2019s a bunch of things here I\u2019m just not getting. I\u2019ve sent a question to Sen. Wyden\u2019s office regarding this, and I\u2019m eager to get a response. In the meantime, does anyone out there agree with me on any of this?<\/p>\n

Or, better yet, if I\u2019m completely off-base here, can you at least straighten me out?<\/p>\n

<\/font>Patric
\nk Barnard<\/font><\/a> is Associate Editor for TMCnet and a columnist covering the telecom industry. To see more of his articles, please visit <\/font>Patrick Barnard\u2019s columnist page<\/font><\/a>.<\/p>\n

——-<\/p>\n

If you liked this, be sure to read some articles on the Sen. Ron Wyden\u2019s <\/font>Internet Nondiscrimination Act<\/font><\/a> of 2006 from <\/font>Pat<\/font><\/a> and <\/font>Me<\/font><\/a>.<\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

TMCnet\u2019s Patrick Barnard sent me a blog entry as this doesn\u2019t pass as an article in its current form. Pat doesn\u2019t have a blog at the moment so I figured I would post it for him. There are some thought-provoking ideas here and I hope this post stimulates a debate on the issues below. What<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[191],"tags":[249,966,920,17,965],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.tmcnet.com\/blog\/rich-tehrani\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4273"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.tmcnet.com\/blog\/rich-tehrani\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.tmcnet.com\/blog\/rich-tehrani\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.tmcnet.com\/blog\/rich-tehrani\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.tmcnet.com\/blog\/rich-tehrani\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4273"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.tmcnet.com\/blog\/rich-tehrani\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4273\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.tmcnet.com\/blog\/rich-tehrani\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4273"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.tmcnet.com\/blog\/rich-tehrani\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4273"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.tmcnet.com\/blog\/rich-tehrani\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4273"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}