Friday, March 21, 2014
The argument over net neutrality is being muddled by semantic definition arguments. I have a very simple fix as a proposal.
When a service provider markets to an end-consumer unlimited Internet access for a monthly fee, the ISP has an obligation to take all commercially reasonable action to maximize the bandwidth of all traffic towards the cap of the subscription. To be explicitly specific: If Comcast offers John Smith in Iowa a 20mb/s connection to the Internet for $39.99/mo, Comcast must take all commercially reasonable steps to ensure that John gets 20mb/s access at all times to all services. Comcast is only responsible for it’s own network and its end of the interconnection to other networks.
If Comcast does anything to degrade John’s internet access to certain services on the Internet, it is misleading to claim they are offering “Internet” access at all. It’s an abuse of marketing, a misrepresentation of the service offered, and in my opinion solid ground for a class-action lawsuit.
If Comcast wants to market an Internet-alternative service, lets call it Smuckynet, they are totally free to do so. Smuckynet access could be a subset of the Internet, and could require non-net-neutral tolls to content providers. We live in an open, free market, and if there is consumer demand for Smuckynet, then I wish Comcast the best of luck with their new product and congratulate them in advance on their future success. I for one would never pay for Smuckynet. I might use it for free if offered, the same way I used Facebook and Google for free, knowing that ultimately, I am the product.
Offering unlimited Internet access to end-consumers at a premium price, while subversively and deliberately gating traffic to popular web services in order to extract business ransom has to stop. It is misleading to claim this is Internet access; in practice is a different product from Internet access, one that turns the end-consumer into a product to be sold to the content providers.
I do not trust the ISPs to self-regulate on their offering of “Internet” access due to the natural monopoly created by running cables to homes. The possible conclusion as to whether government regulation is the correction solution is left as an exercise for the reader, based on your personal politics.