I spend a lot of time thinking about Internet policy and the truth is that aside from some of the key policy questions – like privacy – the hardest thing to fathom is defining just what the Internet is. There are a wide array of definitions and many go back to the protocols that are involved, the fact that it is a “network of networks” or dwell on the large number of routers or users involved. All of these are important factors but to me, what makes the Internet the Internet is the cooperation and multi-stakeholder arrangements that undergird its operations. One really good definition of the Internet I believe is this one: “A voluntary agreement among network operators to exchange traffic for their mutual benefit.”
This definition too has its flaws. After all, it is focused on the network providers and not on the users who drive a lot of what makes the Internet invaluable. Still, this focus on “voluntary agreements” for the “exchange of traffic” to the “mutual benefit” of the network providers involved underscores how important relationships among the broadband and backbone providers are.
What really brought this home to me was a recent study released by the Packet Clearinghouse. PCH did a survey of peering agreements on the Internet and reached the following conclusions:
“The Internet, or network of networks, consists of 5,039 Internet Service Provider (ISP) or carrier networks, which are interconnected with one another in a sparse mesh. Each of the interconnecting links takes one of two forms: transit or peering. . . Of the total analyzed agreements, 698 (0.49%) were formalized in written contracts. The remaining 141,512 (99.51%) were “handshake” agreements in which the parties agreed to informal or commonly understood terms without creating a written document.”
Now PCH made it clear that there were lots of agreements they had not reviewed but they did analyze hundreds of thousands. And too find that most of them were informal and did not require a formal written agreement demonstrates how well providers usually work together. None of this is easy work. On Verizon’s network for example, 100 million people connect every day. Billions of text messages are exchanged, hundreds of emails are sent and received and many gigabytes of video are accessed or uploaded. We have to work with many other networks to make all of this possible and generally, it all seems to work well.
New research from Analysys/Mason confirms that the Internet is not only becoming more global but also better reflects the reach of the Internet, particularly into less developed corners of the world. Not too long ago, traffic very often transited through the U. S. no matter where it was headed or where it originated. Many ISPs have built facilities in less developed parts of the world and connection points – called IXPs – have grown in many parts of the world closer to consumers in developing nations. As a result, the Internet is becoming more efficient and providing better connectivity to users all over the world. Virtually all of this is a result of the “voluntary exchange of traffic” I referenced earlier.
All of this suggests that the cooperative and competitive dynamics of the Internet play out all over the world, each and every day, generally without incident. Yes, there are flare ups and disputes. How could there not be with thousands of ISPs and even more networks? But based on the PCH report, most of these network interrelationships seem to be positive and work out in the long run. Government has not needed to become involved as these networks evolved and developed new relationships. Given the huge growth in video and real time traffic today, there will continue to be friction and challenges from time to time. But these studies suggest they are nothing that the voluntary system of working out interconnection relationships between providers cannot tackle.