Network neutrality has been worse than a solution in search of a genuine problem: it actually causes actual problems to fester. Consider only auto-run video.
Consider the amount of data consumption by most customers of any access network. How much consumption actually is quite unintentional and caused by auto-run video? Quite a lot, as it turns out.
You might argue data consumption of the unwanted sort would be lessened if auto-run video could be lessened if internet service providers could prevent auto-run videos from playing “automatically.” But that would be considered traffic shaping that network neutrality does not allow.
But some forms of traffic shaping already seem to be quite common, despite net neutrality rules. Many mobile service plans specifically limit video resolution, for example, even if content providers and advertisers create their content at high-definition and 4K image quality levels. In principle, limiting resolution of some content could be considered a net neutrality violation as it shapes traffic (imposes rate limits), though applied in a way that all content suppliers are equally affected.
Though advertisers and content owners arguably prefer auto-run, that practice increases data consumption for customers and ISPs who do not benefit from the practice. For both access network customers and ISPs, it is unwanted data consumption.
And the data usage is “unintentional” only on the customer’s part. That unwanted usage is quite intentional on the advertiser’s part. Advertisers and content providers like--and embed--auto-run functions to increase “views.”
Keep in mind the various constituencies in the content value chain whose behavior shapes data consumption. To limit auto-run requires lots of agreement to do so, and such agreements are not necessarily in an advertiser’s or content provider’s or commerce platform’s interest.
In principle, the ecosystem could agree to reduce auto-run video and take other measures to reduce customer or ISP unwanted data consumption. But such agreements require key stakeholders to agree, even when auto-run furthers some business interest.
And network neutrality rules make some decisions impossible, such as adjusting quality differentially. That Is more a problem on fixed networks, which bear the brunt of net neutrality rules, than on mobile networks, where the rules are less stringent in application.
Devices of various screen sizes consume different amounts of data, but screen resolution can only benefit so much from higher-resolution settings that are more data-intensive. On a small mobile phone screen, the human eye cannot discern the difference between 4K and high-definition quality. And HD arguably does not improve user experience over standard definition.
So it is possible for many mobile service plans to deliberately degrade image resolution without running afoul of net neutrality rules.
Network management rules also are allowed, even when net neutrality rules hold. Downloads and software updates can be managed to avoid doing so at times and locations of peak congestion, for example, without necessarily violating net neutrality rules.
So is traffic shaping of this sort simple "network management," or is it a violation of network neutrality?
The point is that net neutrality represents a policy that apparently was not needed, aimed to solve a problem that did not arise, and more importantly, prevents ISPs and other partners from taking measures that enhance user experience while avoiding unnecessary and unwanted data consumption.
Some argue voluntary agreements can be crafted. Sure, Wi-Fi offload helps. More-affordable infrastructure helps. But the internet ecosystem necessarily is loosely-coupled. In a closed ecosystem, everything might be optimized to avoid excessive and unwanted data consumption. That is not how the internet ecosystem works.
Voluntary agreements can be crafted, but only when all the affected parties agree it is in their own interests. To be honest, app and content providers, and their business model partners, likely have no reason to limit auto-run video.
Network neutrality rules arguably impede creation of access rules that would reduce unwanted data consumption, helping ISPs on the cost side without harming customer experience. But it is not so clear advertisers and content owners would agree. Auto-run video exists because it has a perceived business benefit.
How often in life do we see ecosystem partners voluntarily harming their business models to make others in the ecosystem happy by aiding the models of the other partners?
We might need to be rid of netowrk neutrality to allow ISPs to craft policies that avoid significant costs on their part, without harming their customers' user experience. Voluntary rules are possible if we can resolve issues of vested business interests of others in the value chain.
No comments:
Post a Comment