Several people have been asking me for my opinion on net neutrality. I must start out by saying that I cannot comment on the specifics of what the FCC approved last week until the specifics are published as part of the Federal Register. However, based on comments made by the FCC commissioners, I can come to a reasonable conclusion on where I stand. Only the publication of the final rules will determine where I stand on the rules. To sum it up: net neutrality (the way the FCC commissioners said it would be implemented last year) is more corporate protectionism than neutral internet.
The idea of net neutrality is not a bad idea; in fact, it is one that I could probably support if implemented well. A pure "net neutrality" system would see each packet on the internet handled with a first-in, first-out method. Your packet would enter the internet backbone, and at each hop along the way, it would be treated fairly compared to all other packets. It sounds like a wonderful idea.
Unfortunately, net neutrality cannot exist if the FCC does not address two parts of our modern internet: peered connections and content delivery networks. When you send a packet to a large corporation's network, such as Facebook, most of those packets never actually enter the internet backbone. Instead, they are redirected to a dedicated line that Facebook has run directly from its servers to the servers of your internet service provider (ISP). This dedicated connection (called a "peered connection") allows Facebook to transmit data back to your computer faster than it could if all of its packets went through the internet backbone. You get faster service, which makes both you and Facebook happy, and the ISP reduces the demand on its equipment, which means faster service for all the other sites people want. The "fast lanes" that net neutrality said it would prevent already exist.
Content delivery networks (CDNs) work on the same principle, but provide even faster access to data. Instead of sending data from your ISP down a dedicated line to a server farm somewhere, a site sets up server infrastructure at the ISP's location. While this is impractical to host all the data the site contains, it can be used to provide even quicker access to popular data. For example, when Netflix releases a new season of House of Cards or when it makes the next installment of The Hunger Games available, your requests are never going farther than your ISP's site. Your ISP sends the request to Netflix's CDN, and the CDN serves up your show or movie without the need to contact Netflix's main servers.
Lost in all the talk of net neutrality is the fact that several of the FCC's commissioners stated last year that the new net neutrality rules would not address these types of connections. Basically, the existing infrastructure will continue to exist, providing a fast lane for mega-corporations, but smaller companies will have a competitive disadvantage due to the massive cost of setting up a peered connection or CDN. If a Netflix competitor is unable to stop its videos from buffering while Neflix runs smoothly, the competitor will be in court requesting bankruptcy protection in just a few months. If the competitor had the option to purchase priority service at the ISP, it could obtain service speeds that allow it to compete with Netflix, and you would never notice that your request to another site took two milliseconds longer. Without that option, only the large corporations that can pay the bill for dedicated lines to each ISP and
Obviously, this conclusion is based on statements made over three months ago. The FCC could have decided to change course, and we could be pleasantly surprised when the rules are released. However, the silence of the large online companies makes me believe that they recognize net neutrality will help them more than it will hurt them. They will continue to invest in infrastructure that permits them to offer high-quality service more quickly, while their competitors will be forced to fight for space on the backbone of the internet. Net neutrality may be better than no net neutrality, but a fake neutrality that protects the rich corporations is an even worse option.
No comments:
Post a Comment