http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF
Interesting read. Even though this is a few years old, most of it still
applies. Tim provides multiple examples of restrictions that broadband
providers would want to impose, at least back then. So for example, at least in
the mid-2000s when this was written, some broadband providers were even against
home networks, and WiFi. Some of the restrictions are more understandable, such
as not reselling the broadband capacity a residential customer has subscribed
for.
He also discusses the two options to end up with neutrality: open access or net
neutrality mandates. And, as one should expect, the open access option, meaning
broadband infrastructure companies allow any number of ISPs to use their lines,
has drawbacks.
Interestingly, Tim Wu himself is aware of the fact that this debate on
neutrality is not new, even if some who mention his name are oblivious of this:
"The question of controlling what people do with their network services is
hardly new to communications regulation. It is as least as old as Hush-A-Phone,
and the D.C. Circuit's interpretation [in 1956] of the 1934 Communications Act
to find that the subscriber has a 'right reasonably to use his telephone in
ways which are privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.' This
might happen, for example, if an open-access regulation slowed the development
of vertically integrated layer 2 / layer 3 architectures. Ultimately, this line
of argument echoes the economists' point that efficiencies exist from vertical
integration. The point here is to show that principles of network neutrality
lead to the same conclusion."
"Nor is the prevention of discrimination a new topic in communications
regulation. Over the history of communications regulation, the Government has
employed both common carriage requirements (similar to the neutrality regime
discussed here) and limits on vertical integration as means of preventing
unwanted discrimination. The goal of this section is to further explain how a
common carriage or anti-discrimination model might be better developed to
address the current Internet environment."
I'd say, more like 1906 or 1910, at least wrt the network interconnections
aspects, but whatever. And then, this leads to his main focus, to develop a
neutrality regime that is sensible, rather than absolute:
"What is critical to the study of discrimination regimes is the existence of
both justified and suspect bases of discrimination."
And he acknowledges how IP was *not* designed to provide any measure of QoS
guarantees, but he comes to a questionable point:
"Network design is an exercise in tradeoffs, and IP's designers would point out
that the approach of avoiding QoS had important advantages. Primarily, it
helped IP be 'downwardly' neutral as to the underlying physical media. But this
requires us to be more circumspect in our discussions of network neutrality.
IP's neutrality is actually a tradeoff between upward (application) and
downward (connection) neutrality. If it is upward, or application neutrality
that consumers care about, principles of downward neutrality may be a necessary
sacrifice."
Fortunately, applications are designed to accommodate the lack of QoS knobs on
the Internet.
In short, Tim Wu does not claim to have invented this debate. Those who
knee-jerk oppose a neutrality mandate like to pretend that this is some brand
new discussion, with the big bad govmt wanting to grab more power. Lunatics.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
