Net neutrality ignores business users

Net neutrality ignores business users

Summary: The net neutrality debate's focus on consumer rights and intellectual property neglects the complex issues for business users, says Nick White

TOPICS: Government UK

The net neutrality debate has been hijacked by an argument about consumer and intellectual property rights. As usual, the needs of business users have largely been sidelined, says Nick White.

The recent BT launch of Content Connect, allowing ISPs to charge content providers, has sparked allegations of a two-tier internet and reignited the heated debate over so-called network neutrality.

Even though the issue of net neutrality has been simmering for some time, it is often misunderstood.

The European Commission concluded recently after a public consultation that there was no need or justification for further network neutrality regulation at this point. It argued that ISPs could manage traffic on their network, so long as what they did was transparent.

This inconsistency of regulatory approach to net neutrality is a major enterprise concern.

Acceptable traffic prioritisation
On that basis, net neutrality is reduced to ensuring acceptable traffic prioritisation processes, which are not anti-competitive in nature. Thus it permits using such rules to deliver different levels of contracted service, or to manage fault recovery situations.

On 21 December, US government agency the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted three to two to approve an order for implementation of net-neutrality policies. The order has three sections that set policies on transparency, prohibit blocking lawful content on wired networks and certain types of content on wireless networks, and prevent unreasonable discrimination.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said the measure was "a compromise between industry and consumer interests, which protects internet freedom and openness, and which promotes robust innovation and investment". The same provisions do not apply as strongly to mobile users because the agency voted to keep wireless networks generally free of rules preventing the blocking and slowing of web traffic. So are rules needed or not?

The UK government appears to favour a two-speed internet, as Ed Vaizey has recently said: "ISPs have to be free to experiment with new charges to help pay for expansion in internet services and infrastructure. This could include the evolution of a two-sided market, where consumers and content providers could choose to pay for differing levels of quality of service." Ofcom will make its views known later in the year.

Read this

Government favours light regulation on net neutrality

Communications minister Ed Vaizey has said that ISPs should be free to explore 'flexible' business models, but digital rights campaigners argue that the government is encouraging 'walled gardens'

Read more+

Variable regulatory approach to neutrality
This inconsistency of regulatory approach to net neutrality is a major concern.

Enterprise customers already suffer severely from inconsistent regulatory environments. Market analysis to determine if a problem exists must not be confined to individual site connections in single EU member states, or indeed to individual countries elsewhere.

An internationally standard classification of applications and content may be needed, to enable regulation of allowable traffic management to be applied consistently.

But what exactly is the net-neutrality issue, and does it need any more regulation? Unfortunately, the neutrality debate has been hijacked by an argument about...

Topic: Government UK

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


1 comment
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • I think the net neutrality debate is a little crazy.
    I object to an ISP prioritising content from one supplier over another supplier on the basis of payments. Just think of the administration to make this practical with the millions of websites out there, how will I find an ISP that is being paid by the exact (niche) website that I want to use for my hobby. The ISP would have to keep a list, the consumer keep a tab on which are being prioritised to meet my needs, and what happens if mid-contract if that arrangement is changed or ended (as 12 month contracts are still typical for broadband supply).

    I dont mind bandwidth being prioritised differently (private networks are with MPLS anyway), its just that all content of a particular type should (and in my view MUST) be treated equally.

    Youtube, Vimeo and even video from seedy sites should be treated equally, similarly peer-to-peer should be treated equally...

    The arguament is economics, but this doesnt really hold up, cause the above methods provides the mechanism required to throttle loads in peak moments and only when required. A consumer who signs up to an ISP supply where the user (at point of signing up) agrees that they dont want video would get a cheaper deal at the expense of good performance in peak times of video streaming... Those that want it, pay for it - it should be clearly stated as part of the supply agreement.

    Consumers (and media suppliers) are already paying for the relevant amount of bandwidth and transfer (at each end), if it isnt enough money, the market will raise the costs... let the market control the rates - within net neutrality...