Skip to main content

The most important aspect of the new FCC proposal on Net Neutrality

So it has happened. FCC Chairman Wheeler has announced that he wants to bring broadband (both wired and wireless) under Title-II provisions. Network Neutrality advocates are ecstatic, hailing him as a hero. The fact sheet outlining the FCC proposals is available here.

I found myself initially disappointed, and thought that this might actually be a retrograde step for consumers. The reason for that was the Bright Line Rules that the FCC highlighted: no blocking, no throttling and no paid prioritization were not actual, real problems. ISPs don't block (that's the job of governments), ISPs do not explicitly throttle - there are sophisticated ways of achieving the same result and I don't know of any actual "paid prioritization" (i.e. QoS provided for specific content on routers/switches in exchange for money). The real problem is paid peering which does not come under the purview of the Bright Line Rules.

Additionally, the forbearance that has been explicitly stated includes "no unbundling" which is not pro consumer. The proposal also completely ignores "zero rating" which is the functional equivalent of fast lanes and could be a big problem down the road.

However, something that I missed but went back to when I was reading a post by Jon Brodkin, is the 4th bullet point of the provisions of Title-II that will be enforced. It says:


o Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks 

This is the single most important part of the new FCC proposal. My initial reaction has been that FCC has done nothing to promote competition, but I take it back. We have always maintained that competition is the real issue, not network neutrality and there are many others who say the same thing, e.g. from Jon's publication Ars Technica there is an excellent post by Peter Bright saying We don’t need net neutrality; we need competition. Fair access to Poles and Conduits is critical to increasing broadband competition in the US, and that's the real problem to be solved, not enforcement of "Net Neutrality".


Comments

  1. does poles and conduits include towers? many a "consumer" would benefit from public, transparent rates for tower access. Talk to cringley.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It’s really a great to see the post like this which provides a meaningful data to someone who is new to this field, thanks for sharing it. Reach out to your customers within a short period of time anywhere and anytime in the world with email marketing, b2b marketing, list solutions & market research services. Best Email List Providers in USA

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The business of ZeroRating

ZeroRating conversations are dominating Network Neutrality issues these days, whether it is the FreeBasics controversy  in India, Binge On by T-Mobile, or Verizon's recent announcement of a plan similar to AT&T's sponsored data. Here are a few thoughts to consider about ZeroRating and why it makes no sense (to me). If ISPs Zero Rate content, somebody has to pay for the bandwidth. Suppose the Content provider pays for it. Then there is a pricing problem: ISPs cannot charge the content provider a price above the price they charge consumers. Suppose they charge consumers X per MB of data, and they charge content providers X+Y per MB of data. Then, for sufficient traffic where overheads are accounted for, it is cheaper  for content providers to send recharge coupons back directly to the customers who used their services. Long term, pricing above the consumer price is not sustainable. ISPs cannot  charge the content provider a price below  the price they cha...

mRSC: A new way to answer What Ifs and do time series prediction

Introduction What if the federal minimum wage is raised to 16 dollars an hour? What if Steve Smith bats at number 5 in the Ashes 2019 instead of number 3? What if Australian style gun laws were implemented in the USA - what would be the impact on gun related violence? What if Eden Hazard attacks today instead of winging in the midfield? "What if?” is one of the favorite questions that occupy minds, from sports fans to policymakers to philosophers. Invariably, there is no one answer to the What ifs and everyone remains convinced in their own alternate realities but a new wave of work has been looking at data-driven approaches to answer (at least a subset of) these What If questions. The mathematical tool of (Robust) Synthetic Control examines these What If questions by creating a synthetic version of reality and explore its evolution in time as a counterfactual to the actual reality. Recently, together with my collaborators Jehangir Amjad (MIT/Google) Devavra...

Half the equation and half the definition

There is a lot of confusion over what constitutes Net Neutrality, so much so that parties fiercely on the opposite side of issues both claim to be for it. As an example,  the current controversy over Free Basics has been between Facebook, whose CEO penned an Op-Ed entitled " Free Basics protects net neutrality ", and on the opposite side of it is a volunteer coalition, SaveTheInternet (STI), whose entire charter is to protect Net Neutrality. As the Op-Ed from the volunteers suggests , the basic contention between Facebook and the volunteers is a different definition of Net Neutrality. While the concept of Net Neutrality was coined by Tim Wu back in 2003, the definition of what constitutes Net Neutrality has been evolving.  Let me walk you through the evolution of the definition that the STI coalition is going with, which is widely accepted and which I have arrived at after years of researching the issue. I will explain why Facebook (amongst countless othe...