- A TechNote on Infrastructure and Performance
- Larry Hettick, Editorial Director and Senior Research Fellow, Webtorials
Net Neutrality: Why Open Access Should Not Mean Free Access
Tweet Follow @webtorials
5 Comments
The first paragraph of this article conveys a solid idea with which I can find no fault. However, when switching to "Why Open Access Should Not Mean Free Access", the clarity ended.
--"However, the debate gets heated when deciding if Internet access should be a free service or even a universal service."--
--"I contend that open access is not the same thing as free access, and someone needs to pay for Internet access and the core IP infrastructure to be built."--
I apologize if I misunderstand but, this reads as though you actually believe someone thinks internet access should be free, as in no-cost. Although I am aware many have wished their internet service was cheaper, I have never talked to a single person who believes internet access should be without cost.
[Ed Note: This content has been edited slightly for clarity and length.]
Nations, and indeed the whole international community have proposed several ways to regulate the Internet. For example, some have suggested that Internet access is a human right like access to water or education, and that governments should provide it as a free service; however, this attitude is more prevalent outside the United states than in other countries. Others have suggested it should be an affordable and “universal service”, much like access to the PSTN is regulated as a universal service. Some have suggested that public Wi-Fi hot spots should be abundant and free, whereas others have gone so far as to suggest that every home should have a 1Gbps connection.
I’m not convinced that Internet access should be regulated as a universal service, and I certainly don’t advocate that access should be free of charge to every home. However, I do think it is reasonable for governments to offer free public Internet access through schools, libraries, and (if they can afford it) through public Wi-Fi access.
As I mentioned in the full article, we use the Internet to communicate with others, and to encourage a free flow of uncensored information so I do believe that access to lawful information and communications should be allowed. However, Internet network resources are not infinite. Today, we rely on usage caps and network congestion to meter out fair use, and I suggest that we need a more equitable way to manage and distribute limited network resources. ISPs can always raise their rates to pay for investments needed to support streaming HD video users or ultra HD interactive games, but I think a “pay for play” model may be more equitable when it comes to pricing Internet access for entertainment.
I read this article with interest hoping to see a rational commentary on the topic but felt the author left out some important items.
It was mentioned that ISP's could offer a higher level of service, specifically, "class of service / quality of service tiers" but failed to mention for those to work the provider at the other end of the link must support them as well. It is possible some would but it's a chicken and egg scenario on who would move to this higher service and cost first.
Regarding the Netflix traffic, I believe Level 3 was the selected provider for the company and other ISP's complain about carrying this "foreign" traffic. If AT&T had been selected you wouldn't hear a peep out of them but would Level 3. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Maybe Netflix should have multiple providers so each ISP has direct access to their servers. Not discussed was Netflix's offer to install caching servers at no charge in ISP facilities to cut down on the bandwidth and most rejected that offer. That would compete with the ISP's own video offerings.
Finally, the most important fact that is left out of discussions like this is the customer pays for their access. it is not a free service. So when ISP's complain about Google or Netflix getting a "free" ride on their networks and want providers to pay "their fair share" all they really want is more money for doing nothing but the promise to complain less. Take Time Warner Cable and their Road Runner service. In TWC's annual report they show their costs for data access going down each year but poor mouth to justify an increase in prices. (Page 63 of the Time Warner Cable 2012 Annual Report.)
I also disagree with the opinion of the author's "toll free" billing models. ISP's getting paid twice for the same service and the customer will be footing the bill is not a good solution.
Yes, the arguments will go on for quite a while. That I do agree with.
As a clarification on the "toll-free" billing model, it is my understanding that this would be primarily for services delivered via a metered model, such as a cellular service. In this case, rather than the MBs or GBs used being charged against your device, they would be "free" data. So the ISP would not be paid twice.
However, it would seem to me that (without complex settlement arrangements between ISPs) the "toll free" service would have to be provided on an arrangement where the service being offered and the consumer are using the same ISP. For instance, XYZ ISP could offer an enhanced movie option where subscribing to the movie service includes the data to deliver that movie.
As Larry mentioned in the article in a different context, an enterprise might choose to have "toll free" access for BYOD users. Again, this works only so long as the device is on the same ISP.
“Sponsored data” is similar to a toll free phone number businesses commonly use for incoming voice calls. The business pays AT&T for the data session, and the data session appears on the consumer’s bill as “sponsored data” that does not count usage against the consumer’s data plan. AT&T does not plan to treat this Internet traffic any differently that other best effort services; it will travel at the same speed and the same priority as other Internet traffic on AT&T’s network. So Steve is correct with his analysis of the AT&T sponsored data plans.
When the plan was discussed recently at an AT&T developer’s conference, one large health insurance company envisioned using the plan to provide patient healthcare support such as wellness videos on a subscriber’s AT&T mobile device. Similarly, a florist had plans to implement “toll free” online shopping from the AT&T mobile device by paying for any mobile data charges associated with the customer’s order.
Your point is well taken that service classes might be affected once the user’s session leaves their own Internet Service Provider (ISP) network. For example, if I use a cable provider for my Internet access and the streaming video I want to watch is stored on a third-party network, congestion on that distant network or on the video server could affect my performance guarantees. However, this barrier could be overcome by intercarrier service contracts, much the same way carriers today negotiate with others to offer service level agreements (SLAs) that include multiple carriers. MPLS networks and performance management tool can help carriers manage and enforce traffic priorities in an Internet session just like they manage performance in a virtual private network today.
ISPs could also cache popular applications and content in their own network, subject to authorized digital rights management; for example, my cable operator could contract with Netflix to store the Netflix library as a way offer better performance management.
Of course, we know that nothing in life is guaranteed (except death and taxes), so just like we use compensation in business SLAs, a consumer SLA should spell out what happens when consumer performance guarantees aren’t met. In exchange for these performance guarantees and value added services, those consumers who buy premium for access should be expected to pay a premium price, and these premiums could be used by the carriers to pay for the costs of extra capacity, performance management tools, and intercarrier SLA management.
Thanks for your comments!