Net Neutrality (or Network Neutrality or Internet Neutrality), as proposed recently by the FCC, is good for the broadband access carriers. Though this is counter to almost all of the discussion around Net Neutrality, carriers have much to gain from FCC regulation that guarantees unrestricted access to all the wonderful content sources on the Internet. Without Net Neutrality, access to this content will no longer be assured, and carriers could be forced to negotiate with the major content providers.

Broadband is Important, but Content is King

Good content is precious on the Internet, and access is, unfortunately, largely a commodity. But what I suspect these carriers are missing is that, without Net Neutrality regulated by an organization like the FCC, the quality content providers (whose networks and servers are an integral part of the Internet) could discriminate just like the broadband access providers. And it does not matter whether Net Neutrality regulation directly affects content providers, because the content providers could own, influence, or select their own access networks to discriminate. I suspect regulation could address this somehow.

Note that there is nothing fundamentally different about what the large content providers do and what any Internet user does at home. The difference is really just a matter of degree (admittedly a rather large difference in degree, but still one of degree and not fundamentally different). Both can act as sources and sinks for information.

With competition, subscribers have a choice. Without Net Neutrality regulations, broadband subscribers may be forced to choose their service provider based on content. Many would rather have 1 Mbps broadband service and unfettered access to all content than 100 Mbps service without this.

An Analogy

I have yet to run across a good analogy for discrimination on the Internet, so I came up with my own. Words are clumsy here, so the diagram below represents how an access provider and a content provider could discriminate.

Note that there are two access networks involved, and rarely would the content provider and the broadband subscriber be on the same access network. If one access provider can discriminate, then so can the other. Who does this hurt more? Obviously, Carrier A has the most to lose. If a broadband subscriber highly values a content provider (e.g., Facebook for which there is no direct substitute), this subscriber will change broadband access provider and drag along the entire triple or quadruple play of services.

FCC Regulations Will Benefit Carriers

Broadband access carriers should not dread FCC regulation that enforces Net Neutrality. These carriers have much to gain from free access to everything on the Internet.

© 2009, The Product Group LLC. All rights reserved.

Related posts:

1. Insight on Net Neutrality Net Neutrality The Washington Post’s lead editorial is on Net Neutrality today. Not my position exactly, but interesting and well written. Ok, let’s think.  What is...
2. Fiber in Broadband Access Networks The most expensive element in delivering broadband Internet services over fiber optic cable is the access network, and its architecture largely determines how much bandwidth...
3. Broadband Wireless Overview Broadband wireless Internet access is simply the delivery of broadband Internet rates over a wireless connection.  Especially popular for rural areas, broadband wireless competes with...
4. “Enough” Broadband is Never Enough I read lots of discussions about broadband, and the “enough” word always seems to pop up.  As in “10 Mbps to the home is enough...