Weighing in on Net Neutrality

by John Giere, SVP, Products and Marketing

The Google/Verizon proposal on net neutrality earlier this month set off an explosion of debate and criticism. Once again net neutrality surfaces as an issue that transcends technology to become an ideological battleground.

The principle of net neutrality aims to protect the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet by mandating that all internet traffic be treated equally. Simple enough. But when you apply this principle to mobile networks and its unique bandwidth economics, the devil is all over the details.

No Discrimination
Service providers’ equal treatment of content does not mean all packets are equal. Voice and video require much higher levels of network resourcing as well as quality-of-service software support than email delivery for example. Any consensus on net neutrality must start with this understanding and a clarification that content and services of the same type should be treated equally.

Wireless is Different
One of the biggest lightning rods in the Google/Verizon framework is the supposition that wireless networks are different and need different rules. It’s true wireless networks are unique in that they depend on a scarce resource – the wireless radio spectrum. As a result, traffic mediation is a much more crucial part of ensuring the best user experience for all. If wireless operators need to use a heavier hand than their wireline cousins, fine – as long as all traffic of the same type is treated the same.

Demand-based Pricing is Not the Same as Pay-to-Play
As the mobile ecosystem matures, we will get better at figuring out what content and services consumers are willing to pay for. Data plans that target certain user segments with premium content (e.g. HD video) present a huge opportunity -- more choice for consumers, more revenue for operators. Once again, we go back to the No Discrimination rule: it wouldn’t be fair for Operator X to charge HD Video Provider Y more to ensure that its premium content loaded faster, but it is okay for Operator X to offer a higher-priced plan to consumers for better delivery of all HD video services. We believe consumers will pay if they see value.

A Second Internet for “Differentiated Services”
The other major hot button of Google/Verizon’s take on net neutrality was the proposal for additional or differentiated services that could exist outside net neutrality guidelines. From their joint announcement:

While it’s hard to weigh in on such a broadly defined concept, carving out a “slice” of the internet for special services doesn’t have to be the sly loophole that opponents think. Innovative new products like smart energy meters, and medical reporting technology might require unique resources and treatment, and yes, unique rules. But why can’t a strong nondiscrimination policy apply to this part of the internet as well? The key will be in defining what “additional and differentiated” actually means.

Voice of the Consumer
In the end, the “Googizon” announcement was just a stake-in-the-ground opinion by two influential players in that span the mobile and broadband chasm. Not law, not regulation, merely a framework that is too vague serve as an actual roadmap forward. I applaud them for taking the initiative to start a meaningful debate on a very important matter, but can’t help feeling that much of the uproar had more to do with the messengers than the message. Some of the concepts contained in their proposal deserve to be developed further with input from consumer groups and other stakeholders in the debate. I think a much more earnest debate is imperative.

At Openwave we feel that a consensus on net neutrality must include input from consumer groups. They are at the center of this debate. Network operators, especially wireless operators, need some room to manage the traffic on their often-overwhelmed networks so the user can enjoy a progressively better mobile experience.

More transparency is needed so that neutral network practices can’t be misinterpreted as unfair treatment. The right to earn a fair return on ones investment should also be respected. Likewise, checking the power of those who run the network is equally important. If natural market forces prove insufficient to provide this balance (which remains to be seen), perhaps there is a role for a common sense approach to outside regulation.

We will continue to follow this.