by Larry Dignan - Baseline
The network neutrality debate, which is expected to surface again this
fall, is a faux issue that if mandated by Congress is bound to become
a mess. Count me in the camp that Congress do nada about net
neutrality.
"Net neutrality" is a term few can agree on. For Google, Yahoo and
eBay, mandating net neutrality means that telecommunications giants
will have to treat all Internet traffic equally. For net neutrality's
staunchest supporters, the concept has become a quasi censorship issue
(as if Verizon would tell its customers they couldn't use Google). For
those telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon, net neutrality means they
couldn't charge for enhanced services. For Internet users, profiled in
eWEEK this week, the end of net neutrality would be downright scary
because costs could go up or not. Perhaps startups would be shut
out or not. No one knows what will happen, since the debate is
really a fracas between Net and telecom behemoths battling over their
interests and trying to prod Congress to fix a problem that doesn't
exist yet. In other words, the histrionic levels in this debate are
high.
So why shouldn't Congress get involved? Here are a few reasons:
1. Congress will screw it up. If techies can't agree on a definition
of net neutrality, it's highly unlikely that a bunch of pols
understand the issue. Let's say Congress does mandate net
neutrality. Great news, right? Not so fast. Once net neutrality is
mandated, the laws of unintended consequences kick in. Suddenly, we're
locked into a Net architecture (the current one that's decades
old). Suddenly, there are no fast lanes allowed. Suddenly, entrenched
players become more entrenched into the current setup. Is it possible
Congress could mandate net neutrality in a way that would allay all
these concerns? Sure, but it's unlikely. In fact, the only consensus
on the net neutrality issue is that no one thinks Congress has a clue.
2. Fast lanes exist today. Proponents of mandating net neutrality
cringe at the concept of tiered services. However, tiered services
exist today. Fast lanes exist today. Case in point: Akamai. If you
are a big Web content provider such as Google, Yahoo or CNN, you can
afford to use Akamai's services, which house content in places near
the end users. If you are a startup, you may not be able to use
Akamai. Take it one step further: If Congress says there's no fast
lane, does that mean Akamai can't exist? Hmm.
3. All traffic isn't created equal. An e-mail doesn't have the same
service requirements as a VOIP call. An X-ray of a heart patient
should have priority over a Britney Spears video. Corporate networks
manage traffic that way, and at some point there has to be some
intelligence added to public Internet infrastructure between the end
points. Net neutrality requirements mean all traffic is created
equal. You can debate over who makes the call over what traffic gets
priority, but to pretend all traffic is equal doesn't hold up.
4. Telecom giants are already doomed. So net neutrality disappears and
AT&T and Verizon can theoretically do whatever they want. AT&T gets
huffy and blocks Google and YouTube because it taxes Ma Bell's
infrastructure. Guess what? Customers leave. Sure, AT&T and Verizon
wield a lot of power, but it's more tenuous than you'd think. For
starters, telecom giants are in no position to censor traffic.
Meanwhile, technology is going to pull an end run on the last-mile
issue. Sprint is rolling out WiMax and Clearwire has hefty financial
backers. Both will succeed. Don't buy that argument? How about this
one: If net neutrality ends, the likes of Google and Yahoo could start
charging AT&T and Verizon to carry them on their networks. Why
couldn't Google charge network operators just like ESPN charges cable
companies?
5. Laws exist to thwart net neutrality concerns today. Say AT&T does
block Vonage. The Federal Communications Commission can act. Vonage can
sue under antitrust law. Maybe these efforts won't do enough. If that
turns out to be the case, then Congress can cook up a fix when the
problem surfaces. For now, mandating net neutrality is a recipe for
disaster.
Check out eWEEK.com's Infrastructure Center for the latest news, views
and analysis on servers, switches and networking protocols for the
enterprise and small businesses.
Copyright 2006 Ziff Davis Inc.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html
For more tech news and headlines each day, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/technews.html
Larry Dignan (