Net Neutrality or Net Bias? Finding the
Proper Balance in Network Governance
A Presentation at the
What Rules for IP-enabled NGNs Workshop
International Telecommunication Union
Geneva, Switzerland 23-24 March 2006
Rob Frieden, Professor of Telecommunications
Penn State University
rmf5@psu.edu
web: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/m/rmf5/
Explaining the Concepts—
Network Neutrality




Advocates for network neutrality in the United States and
elsewhere have called upon NRAs and legislatures to ensure
that Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) cannot discriminate
against, or favor specific bitstreams.
Net neutrality advocates want to convert “aspirational” views
of what the Internet can be into rules that can restrict ISP
flexibility in terms of pricing, service quality and offerings.
They believe this principle should apply both upstream to
other ISPs, or downstream to other ISPs, including how end
users are treated.
Net neutrality advocates believe that the Internet has
contributed to national productivity, economic opportunity
and innovation in light of its nondiscriminatory, end-to-end
connectivity.
2
The FCC’s Four
Network Freedoms
In a Policy Statement The FCC has articulated four non-biding
“principles”:

(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content
of their choice;

(2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of
their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;

(3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal
devices that do not harm the network; and

(4) consumers are entitled to competition among network
providers, application and service providers, and content
providers.
3
Explaining the Concepts—
Network Flexibility

Advocates for network flexibility reject constraints on their
ability to price discriminate and recoup sizeable investment in
broadband infrastructure.

They view net neutrality as thwarting competition and
creating disincentives to invest in NGNs.

Advocates for net flexibility note that ISPs do not operate as
common carriers in most nations.

As information service providers, ISPs have flexibly
negotiated interconnection arrangements without evidence
that any ISP or user group has faced concerted refusals to deal
boycotts or and other anticompetitive practices.
4
How Does Either Concept Jibe with
Existing Internet Protocols?

ISPs have achieved widespread geographical reach by
securing “best efforts” routing and reciprocal carriage
agreements from other ISPs information service providers.

They acquired significant market penetration by offering
subscribers unmetered “All You Can Eat” service options.

“Nethead” philosophy about the Internet emphasizes lofty
notions about ubiquitous access with less emphasis on cost
recovery and analysis of cost causation.

Netheads favor zero payment Sender Keep All/Bill and Keep
“peering.”
5
Revenge of the Bellheads: Internet
Privatization Changes
the Protocols and Who Rules

As the Internet grew government incubators withdrew
financial support forcing a more commercial orientation.

The Internet industrial structure became more hierarchical
with small ISPs paying for transit and a few Tier-1 ISPs
continuing to peer.

Because the major telecoms carriers own the major ISPs, a
Bellhead management and telecoms cost recovery template
predominates.

The telecom template has a route specific focus with
comprehensive route tracking, usage metering and cost
accounting.
6
Challenges to a Telecoms-Based
Economic Model

ISPs generate some content as well as the bit transport conduit.

Traffic streams typically are asymmetrical, i.e., a small upstream
request triggers a large cascade of traffic, often augmented by
unsolicited advertising.

Transiting and peering are connection and bandwidth based with less,
if any, emphasis on metering.

Until recently metering cost exceeded the benefits, and “tunneling” a
complete end-to-end link was technologically difficult and likely to
violate existing “best efforts” transit and peering agreements.
7
Net Bias Versus Reasonable Price
and Service Discrimination




Net bias occurs when an ISP deliberately discriminates against a
specific type of bitstream or generator of a bitstream without an
operational justification. This includes blocking ports and “snifting”
bits to identify and block certain types, e.g., a competitor’s VoiP
traffic.
ISPs can and should drop bits and deny service based on congestion
and the inability to route bits. Net bias occurs when an ISP denies
access even though ample capacity to switch and route the traffic
exists.
ISPs can and should offer end users different bandwidth and
throughput speeds as well as different interconnection and access
arrangements to upstream peers versus clients.
Net bias occurs when an ISP deliberately degrades service by
partitioning bandwidth and leaving it underutilized so that public
transit routes become more congested and unreliable.
8
Conclusions and Recommendations

Network flexibility in pricing, service provisioning and quality of
service options can make economic sense.

However deliberate blocking or degrading traffic does not.

ISPs should be able to partition bandwidth and offer downstream
end users and upstream ISPs different levels of bandwidth and QOS.

Better than best efforts is not a contradiction, but existing
interconnection and SLAs may restrict this option as might
competition laws.

ISPs should fully disclose terms and conditions. Requiring
transparency does not foreclose net flexibility.
9
Conclusions and Recommendations
(cont.)

Net flexibility should not extend mid-stream to the switching and
routing of traffic between a content source and end user unless and
until a single ISP can offer a superior and complete routing from
server to client.

SBC-at&t Ed Whitacre has not demonstrated how content providers
such as Google have enjoyed a free ride. On the other hand ISPs
should have the option of offering a more expensive, premium
content delivery option if ISPs can deliver it.

Net bias to mid-stream traffic should not occur simply because
certain content providers generate a lot of traffic and have greater
market capitalization, or because an ISP can create congestion like
Enron did.
10