Communications - February 2009

V

viewpoints

DOI: 10.1145/1461928.1461942

Point/counterpoint
network neutrality
nuances

A discussion of divergent paths to unrestricted access of content and applications via the Internet.

Point: Barbara van Schewick

IMagine SWitching on your computer to try an exciting new Internet application you heard about. It does not work. You call customer support, but they cannot help you. If you are like most users, you give up. Maybe the application was not so great after all. If you are technically sophisticated, you may run some tests, only to find out your ISP is blocking the application. Welcome to the future without network neutrality rules.

illUstration by leander herzog

Most of us take the ability to use the applications and content of our choice for granted. To us, “Internet access” means access to everything the Internet has to offer, not access to a selection of Internet applications and content approved by our ISP. This assumption was justified in the past, when the Internet was application-blind, making it impossible for ISPs such as AT&T, Earth-Link, or Comcast to interfere with the applications and content running over their network.^a Today’s world is different: ISPs have access to sophisticated technology that enables them to block applications or content they do not like, or degrade their performance by slowing the delivery of the corresponding data packets.

Whether and how the law should

even among network neutrality proponents), a rule against blocking and discrimination is at the core of all network neutrality proposals.^b

But does a network provider really have an incentive to discriminate against applications? Research shows that while a network provider does not generally have an incentive to exclude applications or content, ^c there are cases

a The application-blindness of the Internet was a consequence of its design, which was based on the broad version of the end-to-end arguments.

react to this changed situation is the subject of the network neutrality debate. Network neutrality proponents argue that ISPs have incentives to use this new technology, and that the existing laws in many countries do not sufficiently constrain the ISPs’ ability to do so. Proponents contend that users, not network providers should continue to decide how they want to use the Internet if the Internet is to realize its full potential and that the law should forbid ISPs to block applications and content or to discriminate against them. While the debate does not end here (in particular, whether a nondiscrimination rule should ban Quality of Service or restrict ISPs’ ability to charge unaffiliated application or content providers for the right to offer their products to the ISPs’ customers is controversial

b In some proposals, such a rule takes the form of users’ rights to use the (lawful) applications and (legal) content of their choice. There usually is an exception that allows network providers to block malicious applications and content, such as those involved in denial-of-service attacks.

c More applications and content make the Internet more attractive, so network providers generally have an incentive to foster, not exclude additional applications.