The politics of network neutrality

(See Part 1: Free speech and open access provisions are unrelated to the core net neutrality debate. Outright blocking of a competitor’s product or service by a broadband carrier violates net neutrality.)

Another more controversial (and subtle) aspect of net neutrality concerns tiered service, or how fast the internet delivers content from a source to the end user. Tiered service means that packets of data could arrive at the end user much faster depending upon which tier they traveled along. Tiered service does not necessarily violate net neutrality, though the method by which a broadband carrier offers tiered service has significance.

A broadband carrier can offer tiered service with pricey high-bandwidth packages. Essentially, purchasing bandwidth works this way now: a company like Google can plow money into a bigger data pipe that connects to the Internet. Companies with more bandwidth can deliver data faster. This doesn't violate the spirit of net neutrality. A packet can arrive faster with a higher bandwidth connection, but no single data packet is discriminated against.

A broadband carrier can also offer tiered service by explicitly shaping the packet traffic across the network. Traffic shaping refers to the fact that an internet service provider (ISP) can prioritize packets according to certain criteria and thereby improve the delivery speed of the packet. Here's how it breaks down:

The good

• Applications with stringent data delivery requirements work better when prioritized. For example, voice over IP applications (VOIP) like Skype need quick packet delivery in order to support conversation with no lag.
  
• Traffic shaping tends to create a better experience for the end user at a lower cost because ISPs can more effectively manage congested data pipes . Cox Communications is experimenting with this technique now in several markets by prioritizing certain applications over others.

The bad

• A carrier can promote its own services over a competitor’s by surreptitiously slowing traffic (The WSJ reports that outgoing FCC chairman Kevin Martin has accused Comcast of doing exactly this).
  
• ISP's can extort companies by artificially slowing the traffic of those who don't pay for premium service. For example, certain websites could load faster than others if the owners made special deals with the carriers. Tim Wu, a Columbia law professor and network neutrality expert, calls this the Tony Soprano business model.

People disagree whether prioritization with the goal of improving the user experience violates net neutrality. Even with the positive benefits of traffic shaping, it's unclear whether broadband carriers should rely on this technique. I'm apprehensive about ISPs (and more so, Congress) "picking winners", or applications to prioritize. Also, network operators may rely too heavily on congestion management rather than increasing the capacity of their networks.

A high capacity network diminishes the need to prioritize traffic. But as more data floods the internet, providers will need to improve capacity and costs will rise. Instead of exploiting their position of gatekeepers, ISPs should pass the costs onto consumers. Not an ideal situation, but a lesser evil than active meddling.

(photo from ccarlstead's photstream)