NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Competition vs. Net Neutrality
Right, in the overall arc of regulatory history, net neutrality is
supposed to be a reaction to the ending of the unbundled access
requirement that was once imposed on DSL operators. Once upon a time,
DSL was a Title II service, but it was brought under Title I in 2005 for
consistency with cable Internet. Net neutrality regulationists have said
all along that an ISP who depends on wholesale access to DSL or cable
modem should be exempt from net neutrality laws because competition
would discipline their behavior, for example.
It turns out they didn't mean it, however. Mobile Internet access is a
competitive market, in which there are 4 (5 counting Clearwire) national
networks, a number of regional networks, and a number of MVNO
over-the-top networks that lease access from the majors. In most
American cities, you have 7 or more choices for mobile networking. The
presence of this level of competition for mobile networking services is
the reason that mobile data is largely unregulated, both here and in
other developed nations. As the op-ed says, Europe believes mobile is
sufficiently competitive that it need not have any open access,
non-discrimination, or unbundling regulations. The US mobile market is
more competitive than the European market, by HHI analysis.
So why are the net neutrality advocates screaming like stuck pigs over
the agreement between Google and Verizon that mobile doesn't need a
non-discrimination rule, only a transparency rule?
I have my suspicions, but tell me: Why isn't effective competition
enough to make non-discrimination rules moot for mobile broadband?
RB
[ I can't (or at least won't) address the motives of the net
neutrality advocates screaming about the Google/Verizon proposal,
since I'm not one of the screaming contigent (however, I'm getting
screamed *at* plenty due to the fact that I didn't join the
screamers, if that makes any sense ...)
But I do have some concerns about the wireless component of
the proposal. Wireless is evolving very rapidly, and we're
told that sometime soon it may largely displace terrestrial
Internet for most users. Believe that or don't, your choice.
Right now most available cellular wireless services make a relatively
poor substitute for all but the lowest grade tiers of wireline
broadband services. This will change over time, to some
considerable extent, at least.
So an issue is whether or not the regulatory apparatus put in
place to monitor the evolution of wireless will really be adequate
to impose changes when those changes are deemed necessary, or will
any such moves trigger endless litigation while associated
potential future problems continue unabated? In other words,
without adequate mechanisms to watch for changing conditions in
the wireless marketplace, conditions that really do need
intervention might continue for prolonged periods due to arguing
at the regulatory level later on. So the protective portion of the
plan really needs to have some teeth if is going to be anything
other than lip service.
Also, there are already some unreasonable restrictions on wireless
services that should be addressed right now. Server and telemetry
prohibitions in the absence of traffic-related abuse are but one
example. I would apply the same to wireline services by the way.
It is unjustifiable to tell consumers that they can't run their
own well-behaved servers that do not unduly stress the network. Too
often these restrictions are primarily an upsell technique (to business
class, more expensive services), not a technical requirement.
Attempts to declare that wireline and wireless should be treated
in exactly the same manner seem to ignore basic realities.
However, the devil is really in the details in terms of framing
reasonable regulatory approaches suitable for each environment.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
On 8/15/2010 11:12 AM, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
> Competition vs. Net Neutrality
>
> In today's New York Times, Eric Pfanner suggests, in essence, that
> vibrant broadband competition can obviate the need for Net Neutrality
> per se. ( http://bit.ly/9wxdOF ).
>
> I'm scratching my head a bit -- where has Pfanner been all this time?
>
> In fact, it's basically axiomatic that widespread, *effective*
> competition -- of the sort that dominant ISPs have actively *battled
> against* in the U.S. for many years -- could minimize or perhaps even
> eliminate most net neutrality concerns.
>
> But the history of the U.S. Internet includes such examples as ISPs
> cherry-picking deployments -- note that Verizon has now essentially
> ceased new geographical deployment of FiOS, explicitly saying that
> they will now concentrate on increasing market share in existing or
> already planned FiOS areas. This may be an entirely rational business
> decision on Verizon's part, but does nothing to help get fiber to
> currently unserved areas.
>
> Other examples include ISP promises made to states or local
> governments for high speed deployments in exchange for legislative
> protection against municipally-owned Internet systems -- ISP
> deployments that often never appeared. Yet the same ISPs still
> proclaim that municipal systems would be unfair competition.
>
> Few would argue against the proposition that effective competition of
> the sort available in other parts of the world -- and that means
> competitive in terms of performance and price, not just "simple"
> availability -- could render many net neutrality-related concerns
> moot.
>
> But we're seeing consolidation in the U.S. ISP market in terms of
> major players, not the sort of competitive expansion that would be
> useful to most consumers. The Google fiber project will no doubt
> demonstrate technical feasibility, but getting from there to
> widespread deployments beyond relatively small test beds is an
> entirely different exercise.
>
> Also -- and not mentioned by Pfanner, the competition available in
> other parts of the world has in large part been enabled by direct
> government involvement, either in terms of basic broadband
> infrastructures or requirements for sharing of physical Internet
> access resources by competitors. These are both concepts that appear
> to be anathema to many in Congress and that trigger bogus (and well
> orchestrated, mostly "astroturf") screams of "government takeover of
> the Net!" or "government censorship of the Net!" whenever proposed.
>
> So it's not a question of whether or not we need real competition. We do.
>
> The question is, how are we going to *get* it?
>
> --Lauren--
> NNSquad Moderator
--
Richard Bennett
Senior Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC