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.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 4:39 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Much to the utmost glee of cable operators, J.D. Power and Associates has just released an astonishing survey of customer satisfaction with telephone service providers — and cable’s VoIP service comes out shining. Cable tops the list of phone service satisfaction in five of six U.S. regions and only one phone company — Verizon — ranks highest in any region.
While Cox has long offered telephony services, and has repeatedly rated high on J.D. Powers annual satisfaction survey, two newcomers — Brighthouse Networks and Time Warner Cable (the two companies share operational duties for high-speed and voice services) — ranked highest in two regions.
That’s not the surprising part — the unexpected finding is how much customer satisfaction territory the telcos have lost.
The study finds customer satisfaction in the telephone industry continues to decline. Overall, satisfaction index scores have dropped from 692 (on a 1,000-point scale) in 2005 to 670 in 2006. Satisfaction has fallen in all six factor areas measured in the study, dropping most significantly in the areas of customer service, image and billing. The other areas measured are performance and reliability, cost of service, and offerings and promotions.
This is a definite reversal for the phone companies. I was involved for many years in annual public opinion “image” surveys of communications providers. Year after year the phone companies outstripped, usually by wide margins, cable operators according to virtually every key measures of performance and customer perception. Now, however, with competition sinking in, and mergers disrupting their usual way of life, the phone companies are apparently, if not asleep, then drowsy, at the customer service switch.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 3:48 PM | Print | Comments (0)One of the best journalists following the Congressional push to reform the nation’s telecom laws is the National Journal’s Drew Clark. Last week, Drew drafted an opus of sorts on net neutrality and it’s one worth reading.
It starts with the infamous “they’re my pipes” Business Week interview with AT&T (then SBC) CEO Ed Whitacre.
Sometimes it seems that Ed Whitacre has a hard time controlling the words that come out of his mouth.
The piece is an inside-baseball look at how Whitacre’s interview crystallized the fighting lines among all the parties involved in the legislative rewrite effort. The Whitacre interview forced the various layers to choose sides.
Cisco, Corning, and other equipment manufacturers in the old High Tech Broadband Coalition agreed that Congress should allow the FCC to enforce its four connectivity principles, but do nothing further.
Drew provides a road-map for what can be very confusing alliances, astroturf organizations and schisms among the various industry groups. My favorite passage has to do with one pro-net neutrality group that has morphed into many identities.
The first is the coalition that coalesced after Whitacre’s remarks — a group that has changed its name from the “Group of Six” to the “Net Neutrality Coalition,” to “Don’t Mess With the Net” to “It’s Your Net,” before settling on the revealing “It’s Our Net” in April. The group is run out of Qorvis Communications, with its lobbying efforts headed by Covington & Burling lawyer Gerard Waldron, a former Markey aide.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:35 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
