My strong feeling is that the free market approach is by far the best approach to the Network Neutrality/Network Management. If Comcast wants to degrade the service to their customers, then that is an opportunity for the other providers in the market – they are essentially degrading their own service, especially if they are doing it in a way that “breaks” specific applications. In markets where there is a monopoly or duopoly and both providers engage in purposefully breaking specific applications, leaving the customer with no choices, the market condition is a result of poor regulatory policy – not poor network management. Competition will take care of that problem. The few remaining independent ISPs have this as one of the few potential advantages that they can bring to the table – a truly different type of service, with the concerns of the provider and the customer in balance and appropriate for both parties. The issue that Vuze seems to be taking is that breaking of applications is unacceptable, but good network management is fine, as long as it doesn’t discriminate against specific applications or protocols.
I do take issue with the characterization of Vuze/BitTorrent as being a “parasite” on our networks. They are not forcing the customer to use them for content – our customers paid for connectivity to the Internet, and should be able to use that connectivity for whatever they want to, in a way that does not degrade the performance of the network. It is the responsibility of the network operator to deploy the network is a way to deliver appropriate levels of service, establish clear definitions of the different levels of service and communicate the differences to the customers so that they know what they are getting. I personally love Vuze, I use it to get my favorite Showtime shows and also for downloading OS images and software updates. Using it for these purposes doesn’t harm or degrade my network and is a very appropriate set of uses for me or any other user on my network. It does help that I have optimized the software to use a limited number of connections, and have also optimized my network to ensure that no customers are able to open an excessive number of connections to use it. This is not a violation of “Network Neutrality” or an example of “Intentional Degradation” to an application. It is optimization. It is also the responsibility of companies like Vuze to make sure that their software is optimized for good performance as well – it is in their best interest.
Bit Caps are not necessarily the answer, as it introduces levels of billing complexity and doesn’t always represent the best solution. If there is extra capacity on the network, and the provider’s backbone connection is not subject to bit caps or usage-based billing, then bit caps are not needed because the economic cost of extra bits is inconsequential. However, too many have taken this too far, leading to the idea that “bits are free”, which is total B.S. There is always an underlying foundational cost of infrastructure connectivity, and that cost needs to be taken into consideration. The “free bits” exist in the netherland of non-peak hours and the interval between a backbone connection that is too large and one that is saturated. Free bits represent a place for innovation, and some providers are doing just that, with open downloads and service level upgrades during off-peak hours. But not all bits are free.
In conclusion, I don’t think that the Vuze petition is too far off the mark. Someone SHOULD be raising a stink about what Comcast is doing – it goes beyond prudent network management and right into anti-trust type behavior.
Leave a Reply