David Isenberg has me convinced that the telecommunications and cable companies are structurally and philosophically incapable of network neutrality—the prohibition of “any service that privileges, degrades, or prioritizes any packet… based on its source, ownership, or destination.” He sums this up nicely:
“Netheads want to change the telcos and cablecos to preserve the Internet. Carriers want to change the Internet to preserve themselves.”
He’s also convinced me that the current network neutrality advocates—honorable and commendable as they are—are heading down the wrong path.
Separating the providing of network connectivity from the providing of content and services, not mandated network neutrality is the better path. Providers can pick one or the other, but not both. As Isenberg says, “network operators must not have a financial interest in the applications that they carry.”
It’s important that this happen immediately, in Isenberg’s view, because he reports that the carriers are testing a new infrastructure called Internet Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) “that will embed discrimination in their entire Internet access infrastructure.” IMS, if deployed, will render the net neutrality debate moot. Net neutrality will be gone forever, never to return. Network neutrality, after all, threatens an industry’s entire business model: tying an application to the underlying infrastructure. History has shown that the carriers can and will relentlessly wear down any policy that threatens their business model and viability.
Separating network connectivity from applications is, as Isenberg says, “a bright line. It will be obvious if carriers cross it or obfuscate it.” This is a huge undertaking and will take a long time, but seems to be the most reasonable course. We have to start now. The first step is framing the industry structure as a monopoly.
No comments