Ofcom opens debate on net neutrality

Net neutrality debates have been far quieter here in the UK than they have in the US. However, this should hopefully soon change in response to Ofcom's call for responses regarding proposals for network operators and internet service providers (ISPs) to stem or accelerate the flow of traffic over the web.

The regulator is asking respondents: “How enduring do you think congestion problems are likely to be on different networks and for different players?” and “do you think that unconstrained traffic management has the potential for (or is already causing) consumer/citizen harm?". Ofcom is also seeking evidence to prove that “economic and or consumer value [is] generated by traffic management”.

Firstly though, what is net neutrality? Simply, it is the idea that the internet works best if it is not tampered with and when all packets are routed with the same priority, and that certain traffic is not prioritized over other traffic. It also involves treating internet access as a telecommunications service rather than as an information service. Net neutrality is thus an endeavour to keep the internet open, accessible and "neutral" to all users, application providers and network carriers. Many heavyweights have come out in support of net neutrality. Listing companies such as Google, Yahoo, eBay and Amazon, as well as technical innovations such as blogging and VoIP, Vint Cerf, speaking on behalf of Google, has similarly argued that a neutral network has supported a vast array of innovation that might never have occurred if central control of the network had been required by design. It is based on the idea that the internet works best if it is not tampered with and when all packets are routed with the same priority, and that certain traffic is not prioritized over other traffic. This involves treating internet access as a telecommunications service rather that as an information service, which means that providers cannot discriminate among customers or traffic.

Through this Vint Cerf refers to the end-to-end structure where control lay with users at the ends of the network, rather than at a centre. He offers the example of security where users choose the level of security, what browsers to employ, or what Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to assemble audio communications with. This contrasts with traditional telephony and cable television networks where decisions are centralized, rather than with users. Moreover, he continues to make the case that internet protocol (IP) was designed to be an open standard that allows for the separation of the network and the applications that run over them.

The traffic management system based on deep-packet inspection represents tampering at the core of the network. Although questions over throttling and differentiation of packets are significant, of greater importance in my view is net neutrality conceived in relation to the undue use of network gateways for the purposes of control where different stakeholder interests exist and overlap. The widening powers of Ofcom granted through the Digital Economy Act 2010 represent a blurring of Ofcom’s role, supposedly to protect competition and the public interest, to one that the Open Rights Group have described here as ‘altering market access and conditions in favour of incumbent players.'

(Wired have a useful up to date assessment of the US broadband situation here)