Net neutrality versus network management

Recently the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States clarified its proposed rules on Net neutrality, making an honest attempt to keep the playing field level for future internet services. But are these rules actually helping, or are they making it impossible to run efficient networks? 

The basic rules are, however, qualified with the phrase “subject to reasonable network management”, and this is the concept that will probably provoke the most discussion.

The FCC draft rules define “reasonable network management” as consisting of “reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to

• reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns;           

• address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful;        

• prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or           

• prevent the unlawful transfer of content”; and

• allow for “other reasonable network management practices”. 

On the face of it, these rules should be strong enough to ensure that things keep progressing, but is this true?

Since the first networks were established, the network operators have worked continually to free their networks of congestion, and this has involved a number of practices from limiting traffic to over-dimensioning for peak loads. 

Limited bandwidth

One of the basic misconceptions in the Internet world is that no such actions are needed in the Internet. Unfortunately, the truth is that bandwidth is limited. We do not have enough bandwidth to allow everyone to do everything whenever they want. This is even more true when we consider data in mobile networks. There are limits, and the question is, if the rules the FCC propose are actually restricting the ability of network providers to efficiently manage their networks. 

Rules and congestion handling

The Apple iPhone has created many operational problems in the network and still will provide challenges. If we all want to watch the world cup final on our iPhones, will anyone still be able to make a phone call? Is it fair that one user group can hog the resources?

However, the rules allow reasonable practices to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion. This means network operators can limit any service or user group that is congesting the network. So we have a point where it is very very difficult where the management of the network action ends and the neutrality rules may be breached. 

How can any regulatory body actually determine when I am taking a necessary action for the benefit of the majority of customers or when I am taking a hostile action against a service that I don't like on the pretext that it is causing congestion? This is unenforceable.

One of the basic points we need to understand is, if there is a problem today. Most Internet service providers are open and honest, they have taken action against some services for swamping the bandwidth, and they try to keep most customers reasonably happy all of the time.  Games, for example, sometimes cause overloads and get throttled back a little and customers understand. 

So what will be achieved by adding a new layer of rules that probably cannot be enforced? Some argue that we need to clarify the rules so that everyone understands the expectation on them. The counter argument is that the rules are not adding value in a successful competitive market – they just add costs. 

Lessons for Europe

This last argument is probably the most relevant if we want to draw conclusions from the US regulation discussion for Europe. In most European markets now there is choice. You can have broadband over cable, DSL satellite or mobile network. If you do not appreciate the service you get from one supplier then you simply change. Churn is a known phenomenon and it forces service providers to behave themselves. 

So what can Europe learn form the American debate? I think the lesson is that it is pointless to regulate for something that is not a problem now. It is particularly bad, if we are regulating for something that we think might be a problem and, in doing so, add a cost and a complexity to a working market. We need to consider where there is really a problem and, with a light touch, address that.

What we should not do is give away our long learned skills for effective management of limited resources through a fear that the open market cannot weed out any broadband provider that behaves in an antisocial or anticompetitive way.

All bits are equal – but perhaps to make our services work well, some need to be more equal than others. 

The FCC rules on Net neutrality are available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf