Wireless

August 11^th 2010

Doing the FCC’s job? On Monday August 9^th. Verizon and Google issued a joint ‘suggested policy framework for lawmakers’ which reads as if it had come from the FCC, leading to an appropriate response from FCC commissioner Michael J. Copps that it is “time to reassert (FCC’s) authority”.

The framework endorses all the good ‘motherhood’ concepts - openness for legal content, nondiscrimination that does not block or degrade the Internet, and transparency for both wireline and wireless. And it addresses some of the traffic and network management concerns raised in my blog of May 27^th . But the sting is in the tail. The fifth and sixth points posted in the expository blog carve out two major markets.

The ‘Carve Out’.Two key markets are carved out for minimal FCC oversight and therefore would not be subject to many ‘net neutrality’ and access requirements.

First area is ‘differentiated online services’ that integrate application services with bandwidth – “healthcare monitoring, the smart grid’ etc. i.e. vertical markets where performance and security must be guaranteed. The proposed Verizon and Google approach allows each application to be ‘nailed-up’ to a specific network - rather than the Virtual Private Networks VPNs) with Service Level Agreements(SLAs) that operate today. This could lead to significant innovation – if only it were not based on exclusive bi-lateral transport and applications vendor deals. Haven’t we been here before? Didn’t this lead to the original Enhanced vs. Basic Services split of Computer Enquiry II.  And it recreates the comparatively unsuccessful ‘Walled Garden’ approach to applications.

Second ‘carve out’ is wireless broadband which is claimed to have “unique technical and operational characteristics” and to be “more competitive and changing rapidly”, so “in recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace” Verizon and Google recommend against applying any of the “wireline principles” except transparency.

Broadband is Broadband is Broadband….Although wireless has historically had special treatment, mobile broadband is rapidly reaching parity with wireline speeds and quality. Over the next two years applications will operate seamlessly across wireless and wireline networks and many users may not even be aware which network they are on.

To users Broadband is Broadband. All applications require an appropriate class of service at a competitive price. Special value added networks and mobile broadband cannot and should not be carved out from the general area of FCC broadband service oversight.

Reactions and Furor on both sides of the ‘pond’

In the US, Wall Street Journal welcomes this ‘Traffic Plan’ and TIA notes that the “Verizon and Google…rightly addressed important issues such as the need for network management welcoming it as a “step in the right direction … and a possible solution to the uncertainty created by the Comcast decision.”

But bloggers and the New York Times Opinion page started discussing carrier/search engine business alliances and making jokes about ‘VerGoogle’ that have now prompted a strong tweet denial from Google “We’ve not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.”

Wired magazine however, describes the ‘differentiated online services network’ as a “left-field proposal to anticipate an entirely new information highway for ‘fast lanes’” and believes that “Google and Verizon have proposed creating a second, paid-access-only internet” “over an unspecified global network”. Could that be Verizon’s new Packet Optical Transport Platform (P-OTP) network?

Across the pond reactions are still evolving. Financial Times subtly points out that “industry insiders on Capitol Hill and at the FCC are questioning Google’s motives for an apparent about-face on its position as one of the most powerful advocates of net neutrality.”

Others reflect the stronger view that the EU is taking on Net neutrality.with one blogger warning that “An obvious outcome … is that when Google is dragged backwards through an antitrust investigation by the EC or DoJ, it will find no favours from civil society after this betrayal…..Good luck, Google - you thought China was sticky in terms of political support, you’ll find that was a storm in a delicate teacup.”

Throttle or Choke.‘Net Neutrality’ proponents argue that there should be no restrictions by service providers on any type of end-user access to content, equipment or modes of communication but in April a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had exceeded its authority when it told Comcast not to ‘throttle’ BitTorrent’s peer-to-peer video exchange and related applications - even though BitTorrent was ‘choking’ performance for other Comcast users. FCC is now proposing additional regulation and Congress is getting in on the act.

Lurking behind the partisan rhetoric of ‘Net neutrality’ are serious issues. It is time to deal with them.

Issue 1. Harm to the Network. Ironically Comcast was trying to protect its customers from ‘harm to the network’ as the Communications Act requires. Many service providers - including many mobile operators - are struggling to manage the disproportionate traffic demands of a few heavy duty users whose peer-to-peer or high bandwidth applications slow down performance for everyone else.

Solution: Some equitable form of network management is not only reasonable but essential for the broadband networks to function.

Issue 2. Service Quality at a Fair Price. Insistence by ‘Net Neutrality’ advocates that everyone get the same access with the same ‘class of service’ leads rapidly to a lowest common denominator for all. When video ‘bandwidth hogs’ block more time sensitive or more valuable, low bandwidth applications there is a good case for throughput guarantees.

Solution: In both fixed and mobile broadband markets, tiered classes of service for different user applications with different bandwidth requirements and different priorities at different prices will enable operators to balance broadband traffic demand with new capacity expansion.

Issue 3. Exclusive Walled Gardens. The owners of broadband access have been tempted recently to consider exclusive deals with preferred application and content providers – like Google and YouTube. Often there are only one or two access providers, so small new or innovative vendors are concerned they will be relegated to a lower class of service. This is not just a US issue. In April European Union telecoms commissioner Neelie Kroes suggested that “users should be able to access and distribute the content, services and applications they want”…”Nor should telecommunications providers be allowed to block services provided by direct competitors.”

Solution: Toll highway operators should not choose the customers’ automobiles. Nor should the automobile companies pay the user tolls in advance for the fastest highways. A primary reason for communications regulation is to prevent access providers from extending their power to control access to limit content choice or overcharge for services. Networks need a clear and neutral boundary between transport and applications so that choices are separate and made by end users.

Let’s deal with the real challenges to delivering broadband for all - instead of firing political rhetoric at one another