End User Danger from Overly-Broad Net Neutrality?

Keep in mind that there is nothing the government can do about the Internet, the quality of our services, the amount of innovation or investment in innovation that can fail to benefit or harm somebody's interests.

That doesn't mean any particular policy is wrong or right, simply that there is nothing "good" anybody can do in Washington, D.C. that does not at the same time have huge financial implications. The way I have always understood this principle is that "for every public purpose there is a corresponding private interest."

Perhaps nothing would have greater potential impact than any move to apply regulations--of any new sort--to IP networks generally, not just the "public Internet."

The reason would be troubling is that all sorts of networks now use IP technology, not just the "Internet." Private corporate networks, satellite TV, cable TV, telco TV, satellite and terrestrial networks of many sorts use the same technology as the public Internet, but are not part of the public Internet.

From a policy perspective, that implies great danger. The reason is that radio, TV, print and communications all are regulated in very different ways. But as all services now can be delivered using IP technology or the public Internet, definitiions that are too broad will ensnare any "net neutrality" rulemaking in a broader regulatory discussion that simply cannot be entertained at the FCC's level.

Raise the number of affected interests, as such a broad move to regulate all IP traffic would, and nothing will happen. Some might find this the best outcome, but to the extent that anything rational gets accomplished, the discussion must be contained in some real ways.

The nature of broadband access lines is that they can carry any sort of traffic, and some of that traffic is regulated in very different ways, some of which the government has little right to regulate. Phone services are the most-heavily regulated, content of the sort we once associated with newspapers is least regulated.

Radio and TV broadcast content is more regulated than print, less regulated than voice. Cable TV is slightly more regulated than "broadcast," in some ways, slightly less regulated in other ways. Private data networks used by businesses tend not to be regulated at all.

The danger is that too-broad an approach accidentally will be taken, ensnaring the entire discussion in broader areas that arguably do need review, but frankly are so complicated now that nothing could be accomplished.

The specific goal of proposed new non-discrimination rules is precisely that: protecting application providers from access provider discrimination. The problem is that "packet discrimination" is at the heart of many other services of extreme value to end users.

Voice, video entertainment and core enterprise business processes are prime examples. Whole ecosystems of end user value are based on the ability to maintain quality of experience at a high level.

On any communications network with congestion, and that is virtually all networks, some applications have higher end user value than others. Packet prioritization of some sort might, under such conditions, be valuable to end users.

So long as business discrimination is not the result of such prioritization, there are lots of good reasons for continuing to allow IP-based businesses to do so, especially when they have the right to do so, based on their differing regulatory regimes.

The danger here for end users and providers of applications is an overly-broad treatment of "net neutrality," and the issue of whether we are talking about private IP networks or the "public" Internet is such an example, especially as Web browsers might be used as the client side access to private services.