The End of Neutrality

By Edward Burns

With Verizon changing their data access to a tiered service plan, the issue of network neutrality comes to the foreground. The new plans that took effect July 7^th,  eliminated unlimited data usage in favor of varying buckets of data for all new smartphone subscribers on the Verizon network. Verizon becomes the second major carrier in the United States to offer such a tiered pricing plan. What does this mean to you? Glad you asked, Champ!

The definition of network neutrality, according to Wikipedia, “is the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally.” There are several ways in which this could be accomplished, such as a total “hands off” approach to tiered plans which allow faster access to the same content so long as that content is accessible to all. Naturally, the biggest opponents to network neutrality are the owners of those networks, the Internet Service Providers such as the cable and telecom operators Comcast and AT&T. These are the companies that maintain the networks that allow you to troll lolcats.com with reckless abandon. Proponents, typically the content owners such as Google, Yahoo!, etc, call for network neutrality as a means of protecting themselves from the network operators who would have the power to impose fees for access to popular content and limit access to content whose owners prefer to leave available to everyone.

With Verizon moving to tiered data plans for smartphone users, those end-users who choose to watch the bandwidth hogging YouTube videos that potentially deprive other users from surfing the data-tamed lolcats.com would have to pay more for their access. This allows the network operator the means of providing neutral and equal network capability to everyone by profiting from those whose usage demands put a higher strain on the network, thereby freeing up bandwidth by imposing a soft ceiling that punishes heavy users with overage charges. These additional charges can then be used for network development, allowing the light internet traffickers to get their Facebook status updates posted in a blink! This kind of tiered structure represents a kind of equivocation of the term “neutral.”

So why regulate? Well, let’s say that you found the best new way to get mobile videos of the latest new movies on… Netflix. Yeah… Netflix! Well, that site happens to be very data intensive. It is sites like Netflix and YouTube that could become the victims of network non-neutrality because the network operators could impose a fee to access these sites, charging the end-user, the content owner, or both for the privilege of content access. As it now stands, the higher cost of accessing these data intensive sites had been passed to all end-users on unlimited data plans. With the new plans comes a higher fee for frequent users of these services such that when they exceed their monthly bucket they will be forced to pay overage charges.

Both sides of the issue have a legitimate beef. Why should the average lolcats.com users have to pay more for a faster speed or more data when they don’t use it? That is what AT&T customers may be saying when they sign up for U-Verse tiered internet service for their homes. This service is similar to cell network tiered pricing except that the users are charged for how fast the data is delivered to them, not how much. This solution seems to support a deregulated network. Comcast, on the other hand, provides a “one-size-fits-all” broadband experience. With just one internet speed, end-users of all content types, from Johnny the Internet Cooking Video junkie, to Skip the YouTube troll, to you, the lolcats.com aficionado pay the same rate for service. This seems okay so long as everyone uses the same kind of services and web content.  But what happens when they don’t? Thanks for asking, Champ! You’re sharp today!

With a one-size-fits-all pricing structure comes the real fight over net-neutrality. Let’s say you are using one of those Torrent programs to get files on your computer. These programs are designed to share files, programs, and other media among computers and potentially use a huge amount of bandwidth, robbing others in the area of their equal right to the network. With network neutrality rules, these users are entitled to their content, without prohibition. Comcast tried to throttle (purposefully sever connections of those users suspected of file sharing) end-users in the name of network management and was forced to settle a lawsuit to the tune of $16 million as a result. Meanwhile, if you live next door to a torrent downloader of pirated software and media, you could find the quality of your service degraded for the same monthly fee as the next guy.

So… now what? You can expect to keep your unlimited plan on your Verizon (and AT&T) smartphones if you already have them. For now. While regulation of network neutrality has the end-user’s best interests at heart, the advantages of neutrality are also appealing. Perhaps the best way for the network operators to provide service without denying access to content and prohibiting device innovation is a compromise between light moderation and good ol’ capitalism.

Edward Burns has worked in wireless retail sales for nine years, including seven years in management. He left wireless to get his English degree at U.C. Berkeley, but still loves to keep up with the happenings of wireless equipment. He is a gadget freak, builds his own computers, and is an early adopter of new technologies.