Connect, then what?

synopsis

Four weeks ago, in Net Neutrality vs. Net Neutering, I said,

So, while pro-Net advocates wish to liberate the Net by burning neutrality into law, anti-Net advocates wish to neuter the Net by preserving the current regulatory regime -- or by otherwise re-regulating it to favor the Cable TV model they've built their infrastructure for since the beginning.

Yet the colossal success the Net has enjoyed -- including all the good it has done for business and culture in the world -- owes everything to the neutral nature of its end-to-end architecture, and nothing to paid content delivery.

Then I asked,

What would happen if we deregulated carriage at the federal level, and encouraged it at other levels as well? How about if we opened up more spectrum as well? (Including TV Channels 2-13, which are due to be liberated by 2009 in the U.S.?) Wouldn't we like to see the carriers get some real competition? Why should your neighborhood be limited to a choice of one cable and one phone provider? Why not drop the definitions of both, and let everybody carry whatever they want?

By a similar (though not the same) token, how about regulating Net Neutrality (insisting on it, essentially), while deregulating everything else? Can we characterize Net Neutrality as a modern equivalent of a market incentive to universal coverage?

I lean toward insisting on Net Neutrality, because I know what the big carriers are up to, and it creeps the crap out of me. But I also lean toward deregulating telecom to let carriers new and old come into the market and fight to build the best possible infastructure for the fully neutral Net -- one that includes symmetrical and unrestricted service to every end in the whole end-to-end system.

Symmetricality has to be on the table, or Net Neutrality is largely meaningless. Asymmetricality is the non-neutrality we already have. Getting rid of it will open the market to countless new businesses, and business opportunities, for everybody.

On another hand (because there are not just two, though that always simplifies things), Bob Frankston has another take on Net Neutrality:

It's simple

The Internet has won. Why negotiate terms of surrender?

We mustn't settle for negotiating "Net Neutrality:. We must demand the basic right to connect and not just an enumerated list of what we are allowed to do. It's no different from having to negotiate free speech by listing what is allowed. Having to beg for permission to speak is offensive.

What we need is very simple -- a recognition that Internet-style connectivity is our right as fundamental infrastructure just like the roads are. We can share them like the roads or power lines.

When I asked Jim Thompson to review what I wrote, above, he added, "perhaps we should insist (and legistlate) that no service provider can violate end-to-end.

Architecture is what matters most. Neutrality is a result of end-to-end. Make end-to-end the subject of law and we cover both at once.

Among the comments,

In my opinion, net neutrality is strongly tied to last mile. If you have only one choice of provider for last mile, net neutrality can never be truly implemented.

As to the folks who claim that there are multiple technologies capable of bypassing the last mile monopolies, I suggest running the numbers on the basic model for last mile providers. If the cost of infrastructure is roughly comparable (i.e. fiber versus fiber or even fiber versus copper) two players might be able to survive but it's more likely that only the deepest pockets will survive. Three players don't have a chance of making it in the marketplace. The key to understanding this is cost per subscriber. A single supplier has lowest cost per subscriber. Two suppliers means you double your cost per subscriber (on average, each supplier now needs to fund infrastructure costs out of half the number of customers). It gets worse from there.

This aspect of last mile economics is why it is so important to make last mile infrastructure a regulated monopoly and services over that infrastructure unregulated. this model has proved successful in Europe and Asia. In contrast, the current US telecommunications policy has us heading towards 20th place and probably lower for "broadband" Internet penetration and usage.

Unfortunately, short of some magic fairy dust, technology or free market philosophies aren't going to solve this particular problem. Policy and firmly enforced regulation is the only thing that will solve the problem.

Jacamo suggests we set aside all the political arguments and focus on one technical one:

MY contention is that if we create a dynamic ACCESS model and allow those who want to pay to get better access can get it, we'd be able to all help pay to maintain the robustness of the edge or Last Mile pieces and allow everyone at all levels to benefit.

George E writes,

IF you really want to keep a free exchange environment and have it supported by corporate $ then insist on a single regulatory constraint; 98 percent delivery of traffic.
This will force the ISP/Carriers of the world to increase the economic load of content delivery, but those wishing to have seamless video on demand will pay for it, while still not crushing the dynamic which made the web what it is today, free exchange of ideas, knowledge, and hopefully a little wisdom.

In the end it still costs money to run a network, ask any Enterprise organization. As such we need to find a way to pay for it and support inovation. Demanding delivery rate limits would allow both to live side by side.

Net Neutrality vs. Net Neutering
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8910

Saving the Net:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673

Our space:
http://doc.weblogs.com/2006/02/27#ourSpace

Commerce Committee Net Neutrality Hearing:
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1705

Lessig testimony:
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1705&wit_id=2303

McSlarrow testimony:
http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/mcslarrow-020706.pdf

Bob Frankston essay:
http://www.frankston.com/?name=GettingConnected