Why Andrew Orlowski is wrong about net neutrality

By Richi Jennings. August 10, 2010.

Earlier today, my attention was drawn to Andrew Orlowski's "analysis" piece at The Register. Let's take a look, shall we, in this edition of The Long View.

In the article, Orlowski argues that fans of network neutrality are living in some kind of 1990s dream world; that the architecture of 2010's Internet is very different from their outdated fantasies. This is due to widespread use of private peering arrangements by The Big Boys; that the so-called "backbones" -- as well as being a misnomer -- are increasingly irrelevant:

A real net neutrality law would have to give every company equal access at equal rates to Akamai or Google's caching servers - and I can't see that happening.

This is either stupendous ignorance of progressive, free-market economics, or deliberate misdirection. Not sure which; I dare say the Orlowski-watchers in the audience will have an opinion...

Basically his argument is that it's somehow "unfair" for big companies to enjoy economies of scale. Suggesting that startups should be gifted those same benefits of size is like saying that Ford should be forced to allow Tesla to manufacture in its factories for free. Or that the mom and pop store should be able to buy at the same wholesale rates negotiated by Walmart.

To re-use Orlowski's turn of phrase: I can't see that happening.

Yes, "net neutrality" means different things to different people; for me, the key is to protect consumers from ISPs with business interests that conflict with equal access. Otherwise, as I quoted Stacy Higginbotham in this morning's IT Blogwatch, "If you’re Pandora and AT&T has a deal with Slacker, you may see your stunning growth slow."

The trick would be to distinguish unfair traffic prioritization from legitimate congestion control. When a hop or router is congested, the infrastructure should be able to choose lower priority packets to drop. The danger is the FCC will blunder in and prevent ISPs from using congestion management of any form, forcing them to just randomly drop packets.

As ever, the devil is in the detail. How does an ISP go about that choice of what packets to drop?

Can anything be learned from ISPs and regulators in other countries? In the UK, although the regulatory environment is flawed, there's a pretty reasonablecompetitive environment.

Most broadband is provisioned using DSL, as cable TV never really made much of an impact outside of a few urban areas. Most consumers can get an ADSL2+M service, at up to 24 Mb/s down (2 Mb/s up) if they're close enough to the telephone switch. That costs about $30/month, but price-sensitive consumers can pay as low as $10/month for an up to 8 Mb/s service (400-1300 Kb/s up). Fiber-to-the-cabinet services are growing in availability, which offer much faster headline speeds. The regulator does a decent job of ensuring that ISPs deliver what they promise and that consumers can switch to a competing ISP with minimal hassle.

So the broadband market in the UK is, on balance, working pretty well. Not perfect, but it offers a better and less expensive consumer experience than in most parts of the U.S. As part of this market, some ISPs are offering tiered service levels, which mean that consumers paying less get lower service levels during peak times -- i.e., their packets are more likely to be dropped when congestion occurs.

I'd like to see the FCC enabling informed consumer choice, rather than mandating a solution. How about if ISPs allow users to choose what happens when congestion occurs? Either by getting a higher priority for a higher monthly fee, or by nominating what types of packets get higher/lower priority treatment.

 
Just a thought. What do you think? Leave a comment below...

(My thanks to Jason Williams of inContact for pointing me at Orlowski's article.) 

You can also read Richi's full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.