The Washington Post carried an editorial on Saturday, May 31 that argued against government regulation of the network management practices of broadband providers but suggested that more transparency regarding such practices would be helpful.  I think the Post has taken a thoughtful position for a number of reasons. 

The Internet is really a network of networks, a set of commercial agreements or “handshakes” between ISPs to interconnect their networks.  Network providers agree to transport their customers’ traffic using the common protocols of the Internet.  Thousands of business decisions are made each day between ISPs in managing connections.

 

While all of this seems to work magically, the Internet is constantly evolving with new attacks, new forms of viruses and malware that network managers must confront and outwit.  Speed of response and flexibility are essential. 

 

Added capacity is important to providing better connections to consumers in a world of rapidly changing and more complex applications.  But it alone can’t address all network problems including congestion.   The fact is that new applications and continued changes in how consumers use the Internet mean that network managers need to be able to adapt and evolve their management practices constantly.

 

The Internet has been through many periods of congestion problems and growing malware attacks.   In the 1980’s, the Internet faced a surge of traffic as “FTP” downloads grew dramatically.  In the early 1990’s, the rapid emergence of the World Wide Web led to slowdowns and the “World Wide Wait” that so many complained about.  The combined efforts of applications providers, engineers, and network providers have always managed to develop solutions in the past and the flexibility and cooperative relationships that are at the heart of the Internet are keys to its continued growth and evolution.

 

The thousands of networks that make up the Internet work together every day successfully to ensure that consumers have good, safe connectivity.  Literally billions of connections are made to web sites each day, Billions of emails are sent and hundreds of millions of video downloads are initiated by consumers.   By and large, all of this happens seamlessly and invisibly to consumers.

 

Inserting the government into the process of network management – by requiring approval of government regulators of network management practices or trying to set out regulations to define how networks should be managed – will make it very difficult to respond effectively to new threats or network problems and inject political pressures into a system that in the vast majority of cases is working well.

 

The Post is right that while ISPs need to have the flexibility to manage their networks – and by and large have done so well for years with few problems – it is important to be as clear and transparent as possible about network management practices.  At the same time, since applications providers and content sites on the Net can have major impacts on consumers and on network performance, they too must be open about how their applications work and what impacts they can have on network performance and on consumers.

What would transparency principles look like?  While Verizon has taken no formal position on this, I think they would include:

 

• Clear descriptions of the typical performance or range of performance that a broadband service is likely to provide upstream and downstream at peak and off-peak hours of usage;  
• Information about network management practices used to protect the integrity, functionality and usability of the consumer’s broadband service and the provider’s network;
• Clear descriptions of rates, terms, and conditions of all broadband service offerings including specific information on available service plans and any restrictions that may apply;
• Information from applications and content sites about how their offerings can affect the way a broadband connection operates and impact the neighbors sharing a connection; and
• Access to and information about simple diagnostic tools consumers can use to independently assess the performance of their broadband connection. 

I think the last point is among the more interesting.  The Internet has always thrived due to the involvement and interest of applications providers, network providers and users.  Jonathan Zittrain has written a new book called “The Future of the Internet - and How to Stop It”.  In the book, Jonathan points to the utility of tools for consumers to be able to assess their Internet broadband connections and provide input to network providers about potential problems.  This is the sort of participation and involvement that has made the Internet work in the past and can help ensure its future.