Debates about net neutrality have been around for over two decades now, although the concept itself had never been envisaged. In fact, standards bodies had built non-neutrality into networking protocols even before the commercialisation of the internet. The DG Internal Policies, European Parliament, states in their report dated December 2014, “Actual network neutrality incidents still appear to be rare... it is important to avoid inappropriate, disproportionate or premature action... Preventative measures for threats that may not appear risk doing more harm than good.” In the US also, there have been very few genuine incidents. Even in the well-known Netflix-Comcast case, there are conflicting findings and analyses and it doesn't appear to be a net neutrality incident. Hence, the question arises whether the entire matter is just populist slogan-raising — a storm raging in a teacup.

At the core of the issue is ‘prioritisation’ of traffic. We need to understand that traffic management has long been a vital tool in meeting the needs of users of internet services and will become even more important with the advent of new technologies such as LTE. Traffic management is needed to cope with issues of (i) management of congestion; (ii) providing an optimal service to customers — by compressing data, encrypting information for security purposes, delivering video on a just-in-time basis to reduce cost, improving quality; (iii) blocking spam, malware, denial of service attacks and other security threats to the network or to user devices; (iv) ensuring that time-sensitive services such as voice, video, online gaming and enterprise services can be delivered in a way that ensures optimal performance of those applications; and (v) providing premium services for enterprise customers.

Need some checks Thus, it is clear that traffic management is essential for maximising consumer welfare. It is incorrect to say the internet protocol suite intended to treat all traffic the same. Prioritised delivery was always envisioned as part of the internet protocol. As far back as in the 1970s and 1980s, production QoS-aware systems were available to the US military and by the 1990s, most US-based internet backbone ISPs had already implemented QoS systems in their networks. Today, for mission-critical services such as the police, fire and emergency services, prioritised traffic delivery is absolutely mandatory.

Charging for premium transmission is probably the real reason for the debate. Content providers would, of course, like a free ride on the carriers’ expensive spectrum and mobile infrastructure and argue that premium pricing would stifle innovation.

However, economics researchers in the US, Jamison and Hauge, have found that “when a network provider optimally charges for and provides premium transmission for content providers, innovation is stimulated on the edges of the network and smaller content providers benefit more than do larger content providers… consumers also benefit”.

It is inarguable that innovative services like IPTV, high-quality voice services, and remote help monitors which rely on a guaranteed quality of service would not have been possible without traffic management and prioritised delivery.

It should also be appreciated that traffic management is also practised by providers of handsets, browsers, virtual marketplaces and other services such as Google, Microsoft and Nokia to improve the delivery of their pages on the internet and to optimise third party content using methods as used by ISPs.

Carriers must ensure openness and transparency of information as regards charges, quality of service guaranteed and the traffic management policies. The customer has full right to demand and be given all this information.

Unfortunately, however, as UK communications regulator Ofcom found in its September 2013 study, only 10 per cent consumers are aware of traffic management despite being provided the information. Moreover, only 1 per cent consumers considered this while choosing their broadband service provider.

Open is not free Incidentally, while the concept of an open internet is fully supported, the fine distinction between this and net neutrality needs to be understood. In an open internet, consumers should be able to access the internet to use whatever sites and services as are permitted by law, regulatory policy, security considerations etc.; however, this should not mean that the same charges would apply to all types of service. It is like asking a 50-tonne vehicle to pay the same toll charges for using a highway as a two-wheeler!

The consequence of a net neutrality policy for a country like ours would be to have the “haves” subsidised by the “have-nots”. When about 40 per cent of our citizens do not even have a basic connection, it follows that all subscribers are not looking for all the services especially the video services.

However, if that has to be provided due to net neutrality rules, then, costs would go up for all and the plain vanilla users would be subsidising the video services of the more affluent.

India, with its hyper-competition, spectrum scarcity and huge unfinished task in rural connectivity, neither needs net neutrality nor can it afford that luxury. Yes, for us, net neutrality remains a solution desperately looking for a non-existent problem.

The writer is a policy and regulatory affairs consultant

Also read: BL Debate on Net Neutrality: Why cast the net?

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW