Preserving an Open Internet
A fascinating morning at the Westminster eForum event on Network Neutrality today, following up on the recent Ofcom and EC consultations. It was pretty quickly agreed that the phrase “network neutrality” had such varied interpretations as to be almost useless. So instead the debate concentrated on the “open Internet”: what it is and what action might be needed to preserve it.
There was general agreement that blocking, filtering and re-directing traffic for security reasons doesn’t breach the desire for an open Internet. Indeed the wide range of participants from ISPs, users (both domestic and business), service providers, government and regulators also seemed relatively relaxed about “application-agnostic” traffic management, in other words things like traffic-based volume limits and bandwidth restrictions that may be necessary to reduce network congestion.
Traffic management that does distinguish between applications was seen as more problematic, though it was accepted that some services, such as real-time voice and video, may need special treatment to deliver their particular requirements of low latency and jitter or to provide efficient distribution through Content Delivery Networks. It was also considered (in line with a presentation last week by Commissioner Kroes) that a lot of the consumer issues could be resolved by market mechanisms provided there was transparency over practice, a competitive market, and that customers were able to switch suppliers if they didn’t like their current offering. There is still work to do on each of these – in particular it was recognised that describing traffic management practices in a way that allows consumers to choose between them could be challenging – but it was felt that things were moving in the right direction.
However there was doubt whether these mechanisms would deliver the interests of the citizen (as opposed to the consumer). These “open Internet” issues include maintaining the Internet as a place where innovation can take place without needing the permission of the operator (consumers may very well favour a walled-garden model that prioritises services they already have at the expense of those that haven’t yet been invented), and of ensuring universal and fair access to services of value to society, such as those provided by government. It’s not yet clear whether a pure market approach will ensure that these possibilities survive: if not then they may need to be protected by an ISP equivalent of the current “must-carry” or universal service obligations used for public service broadcast programmes.
