We often hear that Internet Access is now considered a basic human right, and should be thought of in the same way as other utilities such as water and electricity. Dumbing down the argument to this level is fine for the tabloid press, but let's take a more detailed look, and decide for ourselves.
What is net neutrality? It is the principle that ISPs and governments should treat all data the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by any one of many factors e.g. type of content, which website is being visited, what device is using it and for what purpose.
What is net neutrality? It is the principle that ISPs and governments should treat all data the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by any one of many factors e.g. type of content, which website is being visited, what device is using it and for what purpose.
Most ISPs and mobile carriers have the ability to throttle (i.e. reduce) speed and bandwidth in their network, in order to provide reliable service, even-out peaks in traffic and provide a better service. If you use a 4G mobile phone, your voice calls are converted into packets of data and will more than likely have used the internet to send those packets to another 4G mobile user that you are calling. And yes, those packets will have had priority within the carrier network, to make sure that the call doesn't break-up, and provides real-time two way conversation.
What carriers are not allowed to do is to treat Voice IP traffic from competing companies different to their own traffic. They are also not allowed to throttle traffic that they don't like the look of. Peer-2-peer file sharing networks which carry a vast amount of illegally shared content can't be throttled in preference to perceived 'legitimate' traffic.
Without net neutrality, ISPs could deliver tiered services, to content providers in addition to those tiers offered to the consumers. So a provide a real-time video e-healthcare services (think remote midwifery), could secure a high quality video feed, whilst an e-book download service could secure a cheaper less performant access because they don't need ultra-low latency and high bandwidth.
Why net neutrality is GOOD:
1. Equal access to the internet is a human right. The internet has been a mostly free and open place for all of humanity. Charging "different rates to different website" would destroy that principle
2. It is good for competition and innovation. It protects smaller companies from the leverage of larger companies who could pay more to deliver content and services.
3. It fosters fairness in ISPs, who currently are paid by consumers to provide access. Without net neutrality, the ISPs could charge content providers for priority delivery, limiting the consumers' overall level of service.
Why net neutrality is BAD:
1. If ISPs can charge more from content providers, they could improve the network faster and provide better overall service, depending on the traffic being carried.
2. Other parts of the network already deliver tiered services across the internet. Amazon charges more for faster processing and better storage, which already impact on the consumers' experiences.
3. Many consumers can choose between Broadband providers with competing networks. In UK, between BT hosted services and Virgin's cable network. If consumers don't like how their ISP is providing differentiated service, they can opt to move to a competitor.
Conclusion
Internet access is 100% not like a utility. No one is offering faster, better electricity. It's all you can eat electric until a circuit breaker blows. You can fill your bath over and over, and nobody has better or more water to offer. This is an infrastructural limitation. There would be little point laying two sets of water pipe, or two electric lines into a house.
However, the analogy breaks down a little when you consider that it's perfectly possible to buy extra water to drink when the need arises, or special water for a special occasion (Perrier anyone?)
Internet access is the same. We can choose how to access the internet, be it at home, work or mobile. We already pay differentiated access fees. But would we suffer if say Netflix could pay more to TalkTalk to secure a buffer-free experience for its users?
I suspect that we would. Corporate decision making is seldom driven by what's best for the customer. If an edge can be gained over a competitor, then a large company typically will do what it takes to get ahead. Those competitive decisions would have the potential to limit choice, increase cost and stifle innovation in the services that we consume.
A policy for a government not to pursue net neutrality would have to be regulated by even more complex limitations. Sticking with net neutrality seems to be one control mechanism that protects the consumer, and simplifies the governance of internet access to all.
Reference material:
No comments:
Post a Comment