Home / Blogs

Is the Passion Over Net Neutrality Misguided? A New Paper Offers a Fresh Technical Approach

“Net neutrality” is implicitly framed as a debate over how to deliver an equitable ration of quality to each broadband user and application. This is the wrong debate to have, since it is both technically impossible and economically unfair. We should instead be discussing how to create a transparent market for quality that is both achievable and fair. In this paper I propose an alternative approach that (potentially) meets the needs of both consumer advocates and free market proponents.

* * *

Broadband service quality: Rationing or markets? [Download PDF]Broadband is increasingly vital to everyday life, as well as to commerce and enterprise. Its importance merits asking the question: what is the appropriate role of government in managing the market for broadband services? For historical reasons, the primary agency tasked with answering that question in the US is the FCC.

The FCC has a long history of policing traditional telecom networks, and constraining the actions of players engaged in unfair practices. Over many decades, the FCC has found occasions where dominant carriers to have leveraged their market power to favor or disfavor other players. Whilst this inflates carrier profits, it demonstrably harms consumers.

The subject of “net neutrality” (called “Open Internet” in FCC rulemaking) is about the potential for ISPs to become “king makers” for online services. Its proponents position it as being about the potential for harmful “discrimination” by powerful ISPs. The topic generates diverse viewpoints that are promoted with intense feeling. This paper proposes that such passion is mostly misguided, as the current policy debate is misframed.

Consumer advocates have taken a language of fairness for living people, and then misapplied it to packets, whose ethereal nature barely qualifies as inanimate. As a consequence, they have inappropriately focused their “discrimination” concerns on the internal traffic management choices of packet networks. The resulting regulatory rules unwittingly enforce a grossly unfair rationing of service quality.

We can successfully reframe the policy problem to achieve a far fairer social and economic outcome. To do so, we must strip purely technical concerns of unwise and irrelevant emotive language. Terms like “discriminate”, “throttle” and “violate” are used to fan public outrage, but come overladen with unhelpful semantic baggage. We need a new policy lexicon, one that clearly separates mechanistic network processes from orthogonal economic and legal issues.

Richer language and rational inquiry are our newfound friends; they help us to think with crisp precision about fairness concerns in the unfamiliar technology domain of distributed computing. Issues of equitable resource allocation need to be addressed at the human level, where they always belong.

The treatment of packets should only be relevant to the extent that a harm to people exists. Our goal then is to appropriately relate fairness to people to that of packet delivery. This can be achieved by focusing only on the external end-to-end service quality.

This paper proposed an alternative approach that (potentially) meets the needs of both consumer advocates and free market proponents. It constrains unfair ISP power, whilst also replacing rationing with a fairer market for quality. For this to come to pass, Congress has to express its will that it prefers fair markets over unfair rationing of broadband quality.

By Martin Geddes, Founder, Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd

He provides consulting, training and innovation services to telcos, equipment vendors, cloud services providers and industry bodies. For the latest fresh thinking on telecommunications, sign up for the free Geddes newsletter.

Visit Page

Filed Under


What I find most interesting is how Charles Christopher  –  Jun 28, 2017 3:34 AM

What I find most interesting is how the definition of “Net Neutrality” has changed over time, to the point of now being unrelated to the original.

“If you control the language,
you control the argument.”

Comment Title:

  Notify me of follow-up comments

We encourage you to post comments and engage in discussions that advance this post through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can report it using the link at the end of each comment. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of CircleID. For more information on our comment policy, see Codes of Conduct.

CircleID Newsletter The Weekly Wrap

More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet




Sponsored byDNIB.com


Sponsored byVerisign

Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API

IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPv4.Global

Brand Protection

Sponsored byCSC

New TLDs

Sponsored byRadix

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign