For Granted – A critical discussion of Net Neutrality

One of the most easy
and most dangerous mistakes
is taking something valuable
for granted.

Should providers treat
the Internet as a public utility
by giving all usage equal priority?

The Internet is a global computer network
with an unprecedented variety.

• many different devices
  • laptops
  • servers
  • phones
  • tablets
  • appliances
  • wearables
  • …
• many different technical protocols
  • TCP
  • UDP
  • DNS
  • POP
  • IMAP
  • …
• many different applications
  • World Wide Web
  • email
  • voice over IP
  • …

Internet providers enable Internet access
for companies and consumers.

• Providers maintain infrastructure that connects smaller subnetworks to the Internet.
  • cables
  • antennas
  • routers
  • modems
  • …
• We pay them, typically through a subscription, for usage of that infrastructure under constraints.
  • allowed data volume
  • expected bandwidth

We expect providers to not differentiate
between the bits on the wire (or antenna).

• Providers choose how many bits we get,
  we choose where and how to spend hem.
• One bit is one bit, regardless of:
  • which protocol you use it for
  • which website you visit
  • …
• In that sense, providers are public utilities.
  • 1L of drinking water costs as much as 1L of bathing water.

If providers treat some bits differently,
they are not practicing Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality [means] broadband service providers
charge consumers only once for Internet access,
don’t favor one content provider over another,
and don’t charge content providers for sending information over broadband lines to end users.

Hahn and Wallsten, The Economics of Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality has different definitions
and different facets, with common ideas.

• no blocking
  • Providers allow all protocols and destinations.
• no throttling
  • Imposed limits are equal for all protocols and destinations.
• no paid prioritization
  • Neither consumers nor publishers can pay providers to make specific data streams faster.

We largely have Net Neutrality in Belgium
and other countries within Europe.

• The European Union has a regulation to ensure Net Neutrality across its member states.
  • Some member states even impose stronger laws.
• Belgian providers don’t block, throttle, or prioritize.
  • …except for DNS-based blocking of a few illegal sites.
• The United Kingdom practices Internet censorship.
  • Customers need to opt out to remove some blocking.

In other places around the world,
Net Neutrality is not always a given.

• The US Federal Communications Commission will vote on abolishing Net Neutrality this December.
• Many poorer countries allow providers to offer
  heavily limited Internet access through Free Basics.
• Many countries apply censorship to varying extents.
  • China
  • Russia
  • Turkey
  • …

Equal treatment of all data streams
enables permissionless innovation.

#NetNeutrality allowed me to invent the web without having to ask for permission. Let’s keep the internet open! https://battleforthenet.com/

Tim Berners-Lee, 12 July 2017

Permissionless innovation enables
anyone with creative ideas to compete.

• Shopping on Amazon, bol.com, or eBay?
• Messaging on WhatsApp, Viber, or Signal?
• Watching TV or Netflix?

With Net Neutrality, the choice is yours!

Neutral behavior of the network
lets two markets thrive in parallel.

• market for connectivity
  • make the Internet faster for all applications
• market of applications and content
  • new alternatives to existing applications
  • new applications to solve existing or future problems
  • same chances for startups and multinationals

Without Net Neutrality, an innovation-driven ecosystem
is at risk of becoming a deal-making environment.

Unrestricted traffic is the digital guarantee
of freedom of speech.

• What if providers can make you prefer
  • certain websites?
  • certain social networks?
  • certain news outlets?
• What if certain content is paid for by advertising?
  • …that is not controlled by the content publisher?
• Providers don’t even have to block…
  • …just make it sufficiently slow!

The Web has enabled unprecedented
many-to-many communication for all.

• invention of writing
  • one-to-one communication
• invention of the printing press
  • one-to-many communication
• invention of the World Wide Web
  • many-to-many communication

The Web gives a voice to anyone. Information is power.

Who decides what content gets through,
and based on what information?

• Can we trust private companies to select
  the information we get to see?
  • Why would they (or anyone else) be good gatekeepers?
• Applying any form of content throttling
  implies tracking users’ online actions.
  • How would our privacy be protected?

Without having to respect Net Neutrality,
Internet providers can make more money.

• The recurring argument seems to be that
  Net Neutrality prevents providers from investing.
  • invest |in’vest| – expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result
• Network investments might benefit consumers,
  but at what expense?
  • no guarantee that speeds will increase
  • no guarantee that costs will decrease
  • no guarantee that the full Internet will be available

The Federal Communications Commission
wants to abolish Net Neutrality.

• The current chairman Ajit Pai has spoken out
  against Net Neutrality.
  • FCC membership is a political appointment,
    so decisions are strongly politically informed.
• Let us break down his arguments to understand
  why they deem Net Neutrality unnecessary.

It worked before without regulation.
Hence, we don’t need regulation.

There was [a] consensus that the best Internet policy was light-touch regulation—rules that promoted competition and kept the Internet unfettered by federal or state regulation.

Under this policy, a free and open Internet flourished. The world’s most successful online companies blossomed […]. And American consumers benefited from unparalleled innovation.

It didn’t always work
without proper regulation.

• Comcast used to block certain P2P traffic.
• AT&T restricted FaceTime access.
• Verizon throttled YouTube and Netflix.

The past isn’t necessarily
an adequate predictor for the future.

• People have become increasingly dependent
  on reliable Internet access.
  • First provide the full package, then take it away?
• The Internet now competes much more strongly
  with phone, text messages, and television.
  • …often provided by the same companies!
• In the past, providers complied spontaneously.
  Why would they in the future?

Providers oppose mandatory compliance—
why would they comply voluntarily?

A major contradiction exists within Pai’s claims:

• Providers always practiced Net Neutrality so far.
  • Hence we don’t need to impose it—they’ll respect it anyway.
• Providers should be able to bypass Net Neutrality
  to stimulate better investments.
  • Hence they will no longer respect it.

Realizing the benefits means breaking with the past.

The government shouldn’t have the right
to micromanage the Internet.

In 2015, the FCC also established a so-called Internet conduct standard, which gave the FCC a roving mandate to micromanage the Internet.

Is Net Neutrality really micromanaging,
and who will do it, if not the government?

• The notion of treating all traffic equally
  doesn’t involve micro-level traffic regulation.
  • On the contrary, without Net Neutrality,
    providers would need to micromanage traffic.
• Trusting the government with a crucial resource
  seems preferred over trusting corporations.
  • Requiring trust always creates a dependency,
    but democratically elected bodies are more accountable.

By removing regulations,
we restore freedom.

This framework [for promoting Internet freedom and infrastructure investment] will expand high-speed Internet access and help close the digital divide […].

This framework will put more Americans back to work.
And this framework will provide consumers more and better digital options.

The freedom we’re actually after
is the people’s—not the providers’.

• Providers’ freedom to differentiate
  is our loss of undifferentiated access.
• More jobs are not guaranteed.
  • The most disruptive innovations happen
    on the market of content and applications.
• More and better digital options are not guaranteed.
  • More restricted data plans means fewer applications.

In many countries,
Net Neutrality benefits
most people more
than the alternative.

Throttling some international traffic
can act as digital protectionism.

• Net Neutrality in the US is mostly a question
  of which national streams are prioritized.
• Other countries might have difficulties
  competing with large US companies.
  • e.g., Netflix could disrupt Nigeria’s national movie market.
• In a sense, Net Neutrality is digital free trade.

Is a limited Internet
better than none at all?

• Facebook started Free Basics (formerly Internet.org),
  providing free access to a limited set of websites.
  • Of course, Facebook decides what the basics are.
• Many of the world’s poorest countries
  have this ad-supported, limited Internet.
  • Can people innovate, or is this digital colonialism?
• India opted for Net Neutrality instead.
  • Full Internet access or nothing.

Net Neutrality is the foundation.
More neutrality is still needed.

• Net Neutrality
  • Is all of our traffic treated equally?
• Device Neutrality
  • Do all of our devices have equal access?
• Platform Neutrality
  • Can we choose the applications for accessing content?

Gas is a utility, so is clean water, and connectivity should be too. It’s part of life and shouldn’t have an attitude about what you use it for—just like water.

Tim Berners-Lee

The Internet and the Web
have been granted to mankind.
We should never, ever
take them for granted.