U.S. telecom regulators on Thursday formally proposed new net neutrality rules that could allow Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Sprint, etc. to charge content firms like Netflix, Google and Facebook for faster delivery of their traffic to users.
Ovum says the EC’s Open Internet proposals, as they stand, come down heavily on the side of treating everything equally, to the extent that in their current form may actually be unworkable, and in the US the possibility of ‘fast lanes’ remains a distinct possibility, despite the proposals having evolved from a more controversial stance leaked in the days prior.
Matthew Howett, practice leader of Ovum’s Telecoms Regulation team, said: “Over the next few months on both sides of the pond, the devil will be in the detail. In the US, it’s about what can be considered “commercially reasonable”, similarly in Europe, it’s about what can be considered a “specialized service”. While lobbying efforts this week have been extensive and well publicized, in many ways today marks only the beginning of a much more intense period of public persuasion.”
ABI Research says strict Net Neutrality is not fit for mobile broadband.
On March 26, 2014, the European Commission proposed Amendment 237 to enshrine into law: “The principle of net neutrality means that traffic should be treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independent of the sender, receiver, type, content, device, service or application.”
The intent of this regulation is to prevent bad behavior by Internet service providers, that is unfair or has anti-competitive business practices. However, the very nature of congested IP networks require decisions that prioritize, or discriminate in favor of some traffic, while discriminating against other traffic.
Regulators are mistaken, thinking they can legislate traffic neutrality to the degree quoted above. Instead, they set themselves up as a modern day Sisyphus, with the endless task of pushing the boulder of net neutrality, said ABI Research.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has already come under fire from several consumer advocates and technology companies for proposing to allow some commercially reasonable deals in which content companies could pay broadband providers to prioritize traffic on their networks.
The definition for commercially reasonable deals will make the difference.
Reuters reported that Wheeler’s two fellow Democrats at the FCC concurred with him for a 3-2 vote to advance the proposal and begin formally collecting public comment, though they expressed misgivings about the plan.
“The real call to action begins after the vote today,” said Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. “This is your opportunity to formally make your points on the record. You have the ear of the entire FCC. The eyes of the world are on all of us.”
The regulator is ruling out any disadvantage to small companies. There will be equal treatment to all content companies.
The FCC’s proposal tentatively concludes that some pay-for-priority deals may be allowed, but asks whether some or all such deals should be banned and how to ensure paid prioritization does not relegate any traffic to slow lanes, said the Reuters report.
“I will not allow the national asset of an open Internet to be compromised. I understand this issue in my bones,” said Wheeler. “When a consumer buys a specified bandwidth, it is commercially unreasonable and thus a violation of this proposal to deny them the full connectivity and the full benefits that connection enables.”
Public interest groups including Free Press are up in arms against Wheeler’s proposal.
There are big concerns. Consumer advocates worry that fast lanes for content companies willing to pay up would leave startups and others behind.
More than two dozen CEOs of broadband companies including AT&T, Comcast and Verizon demand to charge extra quality.
Earlier, more than 100 technology companies including Google and Facebook warned that Wheeler’s proposal poses a grave threat to the Internet. With the announcement today, the fight between US telecoms and content firms will move to streets.
American telecoms have already influenced video streaming firm like Netflix which recently agreed to pay additional fees to Comcast and Verizon Communications to ensure smooth delivery of its videos. , but it argues they weaken the principle of net neutrality, which says all Internet traffic should be treated equally.
The Internet Association, which represents many of those companies, including Netflix and Google Inc, has expressed concerns about allowing broadband gatekeepers to decide what websites run the fastest.
Ovum comments
Before Europe’s Connected Continent package was unveiled last September, most national regulator’s appeared comfortable with allowing carriers to experiment with new business models on the assumption that strong competition at the retail level between ISPs would prevent more serious forms of discrimination and blocking from taking place.
Whereas in the US, the FCC has fought hard for over a decade to enshrine the principle of treating all traffic equally, with little room for manoeuvre.
“In reality the truth is somewhere in between. Both legislative attempts leave open the possibility of prioritization, but on the assumption that the basic lane remains unaffected in an attempt to avoid a situation of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots,” said Ovum’s Howett.
Pix credit: AP
TelecomLead News Team
