As I mentioned in my posting last Monday, the first day of the Executive Development Program at University of Toronto featured network neutrality presentations by Lawson Hunter of Bell and Professor Andrew Clement of U of T’s Faculty of Information Studies.
Both speakers expressed concern about the loaded nature of the terminology – and the definition itself. Net Neutrality is a term that evokes images of mom and apple pie: who could oppose it?
But there are definitional challenges – is there even a common understanding of what is meant by the term “net neutrality”?
Professor Clement rejects the view by some that net neutrality carries with it a requirement to treat all packets equally. He favoured a Lessig/McChesney definition set out as “like content must be treated alike.”
Andrew suggested principles for a neutral internet:
- Basic broadband service
- Broadband network operators should provide “Basic Access Broadband,” a meaningful, neutral Internet connectivity service, capable of handling all major application classes. Beyond providing this level of service, operators would be free to determine all service parameters.
- Common carriage
- Broadband network operators should maintain a strict separation between network carriage infrastructures and the content and services offered over them. They must ensure nondiscriminatory access and interconnection to competitors, including municipalities and public utilities, as well as data and content service providers.
- Open
- Network infrastructures at all layers should be based on open architectures, standards and protocols, especially for interconnection and interoperability with other networks and devices.
- Transparent
- Network operators should make available to customers, citizens and oversight bodies in clear and understandable terms their service offerings, prices, terms of inter-connection and peering agreements, as well as other aspects of their operation of vital public interest. Where operator actions may impair service, they need to provide clear notice and justifications.
- Privacy protective
- In keeping with legislative requirements and common carrier principles, network operators should keep personal information secure and under customer control. No ‘back-doors’ and deep packet inspection. Surveillance activities should be strictly limited in scope and demonstrably lawful.
- Accountable
- Network operators should be held accountable to legitimate and effective public bodies charged with promoting the public interest. Any regulations developed should be clearly justifiable for meeting core societal goals, including affordability, universality, equity, safety and national sovereignty.
Thoughts? There was quite a lively discussion on Monday at the EDP.
Some even suggested that the network equipment providers couldn’t or wouldn’t handle all these requirements, such as the requirement for adherence to open standards at all layers.
It reminded me of a time in the early 1980’s that equipment providers suggested that equal access wasn’t possible – the US didn’t buy that argument then. Let’s face it. If policy makers dictate certain capabilities as a mandatory requirement, then suppliers will develop the equipment accordingly or new suppliers will be found.
The issue is more fundamental – why should these requirements be imposed by regulation?
Each principle can and should be examined separately – why can’t market forces continue to drive internet development?
In my view, the internet has flourished without imposing limitations on degrees of freedom for service providers and equipment suppliers. Why risk regulating that which has flourished without?
As Lawson Hunter subtitled his presentation: is Net Neutrality “A Questionable Solution in Search of a Problem.”
Presumptive regulation interferes with market forces [and] therefore should only be used where/when proven necessary.
As always, your comments are welcome.