App Rising on the Net Neutrality Debate
Geoff Daily wrote something I think is worth highlighting. Noting (A) Christopher Yoo’s point about the benefits of smart networks (multicast, mobility, security, cloud computing, interactive video, adaptability) and the preference or letting innovation happen before presuming it must be regulated, and (B) the points made by the Open Internet Coalition’s Markham Erickson, who “supports the notion that networks being able to offer prioritized service may potentially be a net positive, but he cautions that” it could tilt investment to managed services, rather than “open bandwidth”.
With all these thoughts in mind, I think I was able to identify the crux of the net neutrality debate. I did so by asking the following question of the panelists:
“If I were a policymaker in this room right now I’d be pretty frustrated as it seems like I have only two choices and whichever one I make will destroy the Internet as we know it. Is there not the possibility of a third way, a solution for encouraging innovation at the edge and in the network?”
The gap between the responses I got was remarkably narrow.
On the anti net neutrality side the answer from Hal Singer of Empiris was that we should allow network operators to strike deals for prioritized access with application and content providers, but that we need to make sure those terms are available to all comers.
On the pro net neutrality side the answer from Michael Livermore of the Institute for Policy Integrity was that we need some mechanism to protect content and application providers.
Notice how they’re basically saying the same thing? The crux of the net neutrality debate isn’t about open vs. closed or dumb vs. smart networks, it’s about making sure that everyone has access to the advanced capabilities of smart networks.
As ITIF’s Rob Atkinson pointed out at the recent Free State Foundation conference, a “ban everything” non-discrimination rule is the lazy answer. There are potential anti-competitive and harmful behaviors that laws might legitimately address. A rule that bans prioritization and QoS enhancements broadly is, itself, very discriminatory and harmful.
I wish all Net Neutrality proponents were reasonable like this. So long as the definition of Net Neutrality doesn’t mandate a “dumb pipe” or “First In First Out” network and so long as it doesn’t outlaw business models and other existing contractual agreements, then consider me pro Net Neutrality.
The problem is that the Neutrality proponents want the dumb network and they want to ban current and future potential business models.
Leave your response!