Eye on the Carriers By Johna Till Johnson, Network World, 11/06/06

There are some things you can't disagree with (not if you want to remain part of the human race). In telecom circles, that includes net neutrality. Favor it, and you're for free speech, the rights of the underdog and technology innovation - and presumably apple pie, motherhood and the Fourth of July.

Opposing net neutrality means you favor greedy telecom companies, monopoly power and discrimination against the scrappy little guy. What's next? Taking candy from children?

Unfortunately, the real world can't be reduced to a buzzword. There are actual nuances involved - which make the net-neutrality debate a little less black-and-white than proponents paint it.

Let's start with some basic facts. Net neutrality is about preemptively regulating the Internet (that is, putting in place regulations to protect against something that might occur but hasn't yet). Proponents argue regulations are needed because otherwise, carriers might fast-track, say, Google's content to millions of eyeballs while sidelining up-and-coming potential competitors, giving established players an unbeatable market edge over the new guys.

Really? Then why isn't Google adamantly opposed to net-neutrality regulation? Gaining an unbeatable market edge is, after all, what business is all about. Instead, the established content providers - including Google and Microsoft - are lobbying heavily for this preemptive regulation.

There are only a couple of reasons that companies favor legislation that's not in their best interest:

1. They're selfless and altruistic, and put doing the right thing ahead of providing value to their shareholders.

2. Their managers are morons.

3. Things are not as they seem.

If you believe No. 1, I'd like some of the drugs you're on. Big companies can be many things - including, at times, selfless and altruistic - but they don't stay big very long if they fail to provide value to shareholders. No. 2 is always possible, but the success so far of Google and Microsoft would seem to preclude it.

That leaves No. 3, and my money's on that explanation. Consider two basic facts that keep getting lost in the noise:

One, running the Internet - particularly the backbones - is a money-losing endeavor for carriers.

Two, the Internet's distributed architecture means that no carrier can guarantee high-performance delivery of content end-to-end to all users, because the content or the user is likely to be on somebody else's network.

The first point means that carriers will have to raise prices - either for the Googles and Microsofts, or for everyone. But the second point means that even if they do try to charge more to the content providers, they can't deliver on their promise of end-to-end fast tracking in return.

In that context, Google's position suddenly makes sense. Why should it be charged more than its competitors for a service that can't be guaranteed?

But wait - if end-to-end fast-tracking can't be guaranteed, why do we need net-neutrality legislation in the first place?

Oh, yes, of course. We need to support the efforts of rich content providers to legislate the marketplace to their liking.

Anything else would be un-American.