IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

A Technologist's Take on "Net Neutrality"
(previous | next)

While law & econ types, end-to-end devotees and antitrusters wandering in the regulatory wilderness dominate the "net neutrality" debate, technologists are only rarely heard from. This may because they are too busy actually doing something productive for the economy, but I've at least drawn one out into the policy open. I reprint the e-mail he sent a few of us with permission:

The research community is thinking about what the next generation of the internet should look like. It is well accepted that the internet doesn't work as well as we would like it to work. It lacks security, robustness and host of other attributes. The NSF is about to engage in a substantial effort to fund researchers to think about how the network needs to evolve. Of course, the various segments of industry are also thinking about how the network should evolve. The last thing that we need is to have laws that might conflict with this evolution. And while the laws might have good intentions, they could create serious restrictions on how the network could or should evolve.

Network neutrality could develop to mean that all traffic is treated the same (e.g., best effort) or it could develop to mean that an access network must share its ability to differentiate traffic with competitors. My biggest concern with network neutrality (based on which definition you select) is that it could retard the development of new classes of services in a way that ultimately would hurt the consumer. Indeed, it could retard the development of the Internet by restricting the differentiation of service offerings. This ability to differentiate is important when we think about reliability and robustness of services such as voice. It is clear that one needs this ability to differentiate to acquire highly reliable services (I know that folks debate this issue but I have tested these things in my lab).

The other thing that is important to point out is that the internet is interconnected by market based business agreements. This includes everything from the tier one providers down through the ISPs to the customer. This is quite different from the PSTN where interconnection has been driven by regulation. If we see legislation that obligates a carrier to provide differentiation to competitors (like an ONA obligation), we will get back to a regulatory interconnection model. I would much prefer to see the market wrestle with pricing the differentiation (if it is needed or desired) and then have a process to address anticompetitive issues as they arise.

In the best possible future world, the network continues to grow in a way where innovation can still occur at the ends of the network AND services can be offered in a reliable and secure way. This will require the continued investment in the access network so that the pipe continues to grow in bandwidth. It also requires mechanisms where certain services can have a high guaranty of being delivered.

posted by Ray Gifford @ 3:35 PM | Net Neutrality

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation