Network Neutrality has rarely been out of the news for the last three years, but it picked up even more steam last fall when the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that included six proposed rules to preserve an “Open Internet”.  The first four are based on the principles of the FCC’s broadband Policy Statement of 2005, which require open access to lawful content, applications, devices and competition, all subject to reasonable network management. The NPRM also introduced two new rules: non-discrimination and transparency, also subject to reasonable network management.

While public comments to the NPRM were streaming in, a federal appeals court finally issued a ruling in the Comcast vs. FCC case that launched the Network Neutrality debate in full force in 2008. The court found that the FCC didn’t have authority over Comcast’s network management practices.  So who owns the Network Neutrality debate? The FCC has started another process to try to get the jurisdiction that the courts said that they did not have, which caused countless US Congressmen to caution the FCC that they were stepping on the toes of Congress. All the while, industry was working together to try to come up with their own proposal. 

Last week, Verizon and Google issued a very public stance on the network neutrality topic.  In essence, their joint policy proposal enshrines the notions of reasonable network management (like the draft rules in the NPRM and the FCC’s broadband Policy Statement of 2005 before it) and the importance of transparency of such practices.
At Sandvine, we’ve long advocated that an “unmanaged network is not a neutral network”.  We took the opportunity to educate policy makers on the nature of today’s Internet; outlining how certain applications and users, left unmanaged, take more than a fair share of network resources, to the detriment of the quality of experience of others.  Access to the Internet needs to be equitable.  In consultations with the FCC, and other industry leaders such as the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, I have recommended the following criteria for ‘reasonable network management’:

1. Narrowly-tailored
Management is implemented only where congestion exists and when congestion is causing quality of experience issues for a large number of subscribers.

2. Proportional and reasonable effect
Policy has an effect on subscribers or applications that is proportional to the effect the user or application is having on the network.  Policy applies the smallest reasonable intervention to alleviate congestion and improve quality of experience for the majority of subscribers.

3. Legitimate and demonstrable technical need
Congestion management and quality of experience issues can be demonstrated to exist in the network and management’s technical remedies are effective in achieving its targeted goals.

4. Transparent disclosure
Operator can disclose its traffic management policies in a simple, useful and predictable manner.

5. Auditable
Service provider can demonstrate that the above requirements are met through its auditing and reporting capabilities.

It seems like the principles of reasonable network management and transparency are gaining broad acceptance across the industry.  While Sandvine supports the spirit behind the Verizon Google (V-G) proposal, I believe that one substantial improvement could be made with respect to the appropriate use of prioritization, where the V-G proposal is unclear. In one instance the proposal says: “Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.” And in another:
“Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: … to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency”. 

I believe that the V-G proposal is trying to avoid anti-competitive prioritization (such as between service providers of a given application class, such as Google versus Yahoo!), while supporting prioritization for the purposes of managing congestion and preserving the quality of experience for users and applications (such as prioritizing time-sensitive VoIP traffic over e-mail during times of congestion), which I support. I am confident that any rules that may result from this proposal would clarify this point.

The V-G proposal wisely carves out “managed services”, which allows service providers to offer their own differentiated value-added IP-based services, such as an IP video or voice service, and prioritize that traffic to give subscribers the quality of service they expect. Also, the V-G proposal suggests that wireless networks be excluded from the rules, which I believe is a prudent approach for now. Given the dynamic evolution of wireless networks, a wait-and-see-how-it- works-in-fixed approach seems acceptable to me.  And last but not least, the V-G proposal calls for limited FCC jurisdiction, preventing a blank-slate of authority by the FCC over Internet broadband access, and essentially keeping other aspects of the Internet value chain unregulated. This is the outcome that Internet content providers are looking for, and the outcome that will continue to spur growth in consumer content choice.