By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca
Published: 11th April 2013
Copyright Quocirca © 2013
There is a principle that internet service providers (ISPs) and governments should treat all data crossing the internet equally. It should not matter what type of device is being used, who the user is, or what site or application the data is being coming from/going to—net neutrality should mean no difference in charging models, no discriminating between the different use cases.
The arguments go back and forth as to whether this should be enshrined in legislation as a right, or allowed to drift in a competitive open market.
Despite the arguments and the capacity of technology to advance there are restrictions due to the laws of physics and certain resources that are therefore limited. This might not be too much of an issue with the massed bundles of fibre optics at the heart of fixed-line networks, but wireless networks have to balance range, capacity, power and the frequency spectrum in what is increasingly ‘noisy’ environment. Ideally without ‘frying’ anything en route.
While the resources are constrained, the boundless enthusiasm and appetite to access mobile data and applications is not. Nor, given the numbers of subscribers and devices, is the number of endpoints diminishing. In fact, with a re-awakened interest in machine-to-machine communications (M2M), or an ‘internet of things’, this is likely to accelerate further.
So what about unwired net neutrality?
There are already differential services that break the spirit, if not the letter, of the principle. To observe this, consider the way hotels have been offering Wi-Fi. Initially it appeared to be a new revenue stream, but then establishments realised it was costly to get right. As more venues started to offer it, the differentiation was lost and it became a ‘table-stakes’ offering of free Wi-Fi once hoteliers realised that actually they really made money from renting out rooms and selling food and drinks.
Not all have reached this point yet, but the more progressive organisations have already gone a step further. They offer ‘basic’ Wi-Fi for free, but have a premium service that offers greater bandwidth, improved latency etc—what might be described as ‘professional’ Wi-Fi, compared to currently simple hotspots. Basic allows a bit of email and gentle browsing, but the premium service would be good enough for consumers’ IP telephony, gaming and video streaming or virtual desktops and unified communications for the enterprise user.
Then there are cellular networks. Some carriers are premium-pricing their higher speed 4G offerings compared to the tariffs on their 3G networks. Of course with differential caps on usage it also gets a little confusing as to which is the best service for an individual user. In countries where only one or a few of the mobile networks are offering 4G today, there will be rapid pricing changes as operators switch between land grab, maximising revenue and maintaining network quality modes.
Given that users have different needs—from M2M applications that might only require a few guaranteed kilobytes to video streaming gamers who need high bandwidth and low latency—there will have to be different types of services offered. Setting caps on how many minutes of communication or megabytes of capacity will be bundled and then charged for will no longer be sufficient.
Different qualities of service will need to be differentially priced. This might require application bundling, e.g. all the social media you can eat, but video is charged by the megabyte or guaranteed service levels, e.g. all gaming traffic in sub XYZ latency, but email transmitted as ‘best efforts’.
It will be a real challenge for rating, billing and marketing, but there is no dark fibre in the sky and all the innovative use of spectrum has its eventual limit, which, with ever more users and usage, is close by.
The superfast mobile net is unlikely to be very neutral, but that might work out to be beneficial in the long run.
Posted: 11th April 2013 | By Ian Scales :
Net neutrality is NOT about making every service the same... this is the usual old Aunt Sally. Set her up and then shoot her down. It's about business discrimination - favouring one service (the provider's own usually) over others. The neutrality bit is about providing an open service, end to end. That's what I pay for and expect from my service provider. The ISP has been contracted (by me) to give me the connectivity. I will decide what service to watch or explore
It's really quite simple. And if my Hotel WiFi provider has a two tier service - great! What's the problem? I can buy several tiers of speed from my ISP at home. If it's not too expensive I will buy the top tier one - but I want to be able to access everything across it, not just the walled garden content the provider is getting a kick-back to allow through.
As I say it's quite simple. Neutrality as I have just described it - not the straw man the writer above has seen fit to construct - is the proviso that made the Internet the wonderful thing it is today. We need to keep stamping our feed for neutrality to keep it that way.
Posted: 11th April 2013 | By Mike Cohn :
Why the heck are ISPs, Hollywood and paid puppet journalists fighting tooth and nail to get rid of net neutrality? Because they want to start blocking content. They want to censor speech and get rid of anything that competes with their monopoly cable tv model.
Do u like the internet as it is? Damn straight u do. Then fight your tail off to keep the internet free and open. Demand net neutrality for the internet! And then demand title ll law for the internet afterwards, like they did with the phone companies, where all calls are treated the same. The internet is for communication!
Posted: 12th April 2013 | By RobB :
I'm not sure who the 'paid puppet journalists' are?
I'm an unpaid blogger.
I would say that the day that users of the internet are shouted down by aggressive bullying of individuals is just as bad as the day their content is blocked by companies - not all censorship is overt.
Do I like the internet as it is? No, performance is lousy for those in remote or rural areas. I'd like decent performance for all not just free for a few.
The internet is for communication, after all.
Posted: 12th April 2013 | By RobB :
Thanks for your comments.
I'd thought that some might have still objected if the premium service bits you'd paid for from the hotel were given special treatment through the rest of the network over the 'free' ones, ie paid for traffic shaping (or optional toll roads?)
I guess you're saying it's ok for people to have service discrimination, but not for organisations to exert control?
If we had infinite bandwidth there would be no issue, but when there are limits, someone must apply the brakes or pay for extra fuel - the question is who and how open will they be about it?
The messages above were all contributed by IT-Director.com readers. Whilst we take care to remove any posts deemed inappropriate, we can take no responsibility for these comments. If you would like a comment removed please contact our editorial team.
We automatically stop accepting comments 180 days after a post is published. If you would like to know more about this subject, please contact us and we'll try to help.
Published by: electronicdawn Ltd.