Princeton computer science professor and blogosphere technology translator Ed Felten has released a paper on the “Nuts and Bolts of Net Neutrality.” It’s a more polished and enhanced version of his earlier postings that spelled out just how, technically, broadband providers might discriminate against third-party content and applications.
This paper is well worth reading because it illuminates how broadband providers could treat packets so that some services work better than others. It also walks through the pitfalls of detecting discrimination and presents issues fairly and, well, scientifically.
Unlike his earlier posts, however, Professor Felten takes the next step and offers some policy advice, and it’s not what you might expect. In essence, he says that both sides of the net neutrality fight have merit, a conclusion that jives with my own view.
Readers looking here for a simple policy prescription will be disappointed. The network neutrality issue is more complex and subtle than most of the advocates on either side would have you believe. Net neutrality advocates are right to worry that ISPs can discriminate — and have the means and motive to do so — in ways that might be difficult to stop. Opponents are right to say that enforcing neutrality rules may be difficult and error-prone. Both sides are right to say that making the wrong decision can lead to unintended side-effects and hamper the Internet’s development.
Professor Felten’s bottom-line recommendation: do nothing, but keep up the threat of regulation.
There is a good policy argument in favor of doing nothing and letting the situation develop further. The present situation, with the network neutrality issue on the table in Washington but no rules yet adopted, is in many ways ideal. ISPs, knowing that discriminating now would make regulation seem more necessary, are on their best behavior; and with no rules yet adopted we don’t have to face the difficult issues of linedrawing and enforcement. Enacting strong regulation now would risk side-effects, and passing toothless regulation now would remove the threat of regulation. If it is possible to maintain the threat of regulation while leaving the issue unresolved, time will teach us more about what regulation, if any, is needed.
Despite the respect Professor Felten generates among net neutrality regulation proponents, they politely disagree with this do-nothing policy recommendation. Their fear is that if we don’t act now and adopt regulations, the window of opportunity will close and thus the threat of regulation will disappear because broadband providers will know that the momentum to regulate is history.
Bill Herman, writing on Public Knowledge’s blog, says
If we let this moment pass—if we let a big bill get through without strong protections for neutrality—telecom will again become a quiet issue. And quiet issues are either left alone or decided from within the iron triangle.
Cynthia Brumfield at 4:39 PM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
