Are we going to have an open Internet operating for everyone and a second Internet that has special services for those who can pay extra? The providers want a second Internet service (specialized services) so they can offer higher revenue producing services.
The FCC received a comment from advocates for the open Internet, "In the Matter of Further Inquiry into Two Under-Developed Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding, Preserving the Open Internet, Broadband Industry Practices, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52 (full comments available here.
This document contains comments from a broad range of technologists with their positions about the openness of the Internet, role of providers, the FCC and the possible impact on the Internet in the U.S. The following statement is from the introduction to the document:
Recognizing a Key Principle
We are advocates of diverse policy approaches to preserving an open Internet. In these comments, we wish to highlight one principle which this [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] NPRM exhibits, which represents a key advance in how the open Internet issue is articulated in policy-making channels. This principle is embodied in your treatment of the Internet as distinct from managed or specialized services. While we have diverse views about the overall policy approach that the assurance of the open Internet entails, we note here that separating the Internet from specialized services is a dramatic advance in the discussion, one that is very helpful on its own terms to understanding the implications of various concerns surrounding this issue--notably those you enumerate in this NPRM.Defining the Distinction is Key
In these comments we describe some of the implications associated with these concerns, and in so doing we offer some illustration why this distinction needs to be defined clearly. In particular, the Internet should be delineated from specialized services specifically based on whether network providers treat the transmission of packets in special ways according to the applications those packets support. Transmitting packets without regard for application, in a best efforts manner, is at the very core of how the Internet provides a general purpose platform that is open and conducive to innovation by all end users.Open networks may allow for flexibility for "reasonable network management" practices under this rubric--for instance, temporary exceptions to the principle in order to ameliorate extraordinary and transient disruptions in the availability of capacity to end users; or a reasonable degree of transient variation from the specific speed or capacity levels that end users understand they have purchased. However, variations such as these will be most clearly and appropriately understood when compared and measured against the distinguishing principle, for open Internet services, of treating packets without regard for application.
Insight and Analysis Serve Policy Goals
We note that analysis according to this distinction is something the FCC can undertake that can definitively further the goal of preserving the advantages of the open Internet, regardless of any questions of the nature and scope of your authority or the particular form of rules you may enforce. Whatever type of policy develops for the open Internet, analysis according to this distinction must continue as a most appropriate and constructive basis for pursuing your policy goals.Understanding the Interplay of the Open Internet and Specialized Services
This NPRM requests comments regarding concerns that open Internet access might be bypassed or supplanted by specialized services, and that anti-competitive practices might arise related to specialized services. Clear understanding of these concerns has been inhibited by the fact that the nature of the distinction between the Internet and specialized services has up to this point not been appropriately acknowledged and taken up in policy-making channels.On Open Networking Policy and Research in New Networking Technologies
Policy-making channels have highlighted research in new networking technologies based on specialized treatment of packets according to the applications they support, suggesting that these may offer the prospect of effective ways to manage congestion, reduce latency and jitter, and provide for levels of quality of service, as well as product differentiation and pricing models; but until the FCC released this NPRM the tradeoff between specialized services of this type, and the general purpose platform of the Internet, has not been recognized appropriately.As long as this research has not acknowledged the implications of the distinction between the open Internet and specialized treatment of packets, policy-making channels have not recognized the inherent value of the general purpose platform--and how this platform reflects the values of openness, free expression, competition, innovation and private investment.
Defining the Distinction is Key
In these comments we describe some of the implications associated with these concerns, and in so doing we offer some illustration why this distinction needs to be defined clearly. In particular, the Internet should be delineated from specialized services specifically based on whether network providers treat the transmission of packets in special ways according to the applications those packets support. Transmitting packets without regard for application, in a best efforts manner, is at the very core of how the Internet provides a general purpose platform that is open and conducive to innovation by all end users.
Open networks may allow for flexibility for "reasonable network management" practices under this rubric--for instance, temporary exceptions to the principle in order to ameliorate extraordinary and transient disruptions in the availability of capacity to end users; or a reasonable degree of transient variation from the specific speed or capacity levels that end users understand they have purchased. However, variations such as these will be most clearly and appropriately understood when compared and measured against the distinguishing principle, for open Internet services, of treating packets without regard for application.
Insight and Analysis Serve Policy Goals
We note that analysis according to this distinction is something the FCC can undertake that can definitively further the goal of preserving the advantages of the open Internet, regardless of any questions of the nature and scope of your authority or the particular form of rules you may enforce. Whatever type of policy develops for the open Internet, analysis according to this distinction must continue as a most appropriate and constructive basis for pursuing your policy goals.
Understanding the Interplay of the Open Internet and Specialized Services
This NPRM requests comments regarding concerns that open Internet access might be bypassed or supplanted by specialized services, and that anti-competitive practices might arise related to specialized services. Clear understanding of these concerns has been inhibited by the fact that the nature of the distinction between the Internet and specialized services has up to this point not been appropriately acknowledged and taken up in policy-making channels.
On Open Networking Policy and Research in New Networking Technologies
Policy-making channels have highlighted research in new networking technologies based on specialized treatment of packets according to the applications they support, suggesting that these may offer the prospect of effective ways to manage congestion, reduce latency and jitter, and provide for levels of quality of service, as well as product differentiation and pricing models; but until the FCC released this NPRM the tradeoff between specialized services of this type, and the general purpose platform of the Internet, has not been recognized appropriately.
As long as this research has not acknowledged the implications of the distinction between the open Internet and specialized treatment of packets, policy-making channels have not recognized the inherent value of the general purpose platform--and how this platform reflects the values of openness, free expression, competition, innovation and private investment.
There is a very good summary posted at Ars Technica, "How will we know when the Internet is dead?" by Matthew Lasar; and David Reed, an Adjunct Professor at the M.I.T. Media Lab and an early contributor to the development of TCP/IP, posted his views on the open Internet here. It is well worth reading.
Congress is going to change next year. The providers are very big and powerful, with considerable lobbyist dollars. There will be a fight between the FCC and Congress on the open Internet. I do not think the FCC needs congressional approval to reclassify Internet service so it can be further regulated. But you can expect some in Congress to try and stop the reclassification or at least delay it with the excuse that it will affect jobs and the economy.
Do you think the big providers will stop investing in Internet services if it is reclassified? I don't. They already make considerable revenue and expect increases in the future. Why would they not invest? We shall see a battle that may last a few years before it is resolved.
