The word ‘neutrality’ is often used by those trying to convince us of the goodness of their cause.  Claiming to be ‘technology neutral’ is a feature of both the current energy debate and in spectrum management. 

Ducking out of ‘Command and Control’ regulation is arguably valid if society and the market are very well informed.  Cynics, however, may just view this as a political or regulatory ploy to avoid blame in the future.  

In the US-led and increasingly polarised ‘Net Neutrality’ debate the word is owned by the ‘Netterati’ who care deeply about the future of a free, open and independent Internet.  

The Net Neutrality debate has generated more noise than light but for CMA Members it’s a spur to look at the realities of our all-IP networked future.   In reality the Internet has never entirely matched the myth of an unblemished paradise with ungovernable freedoms and common rights.

Yes, most definitely, the Internet we have today has enabled ‘innovation without permission’ but the actual experience of Internet-enabled services has always been conditioned by the performance and priorities of our Access Providers or ISPs and the quality of their gateway backbone provision, local distribution infrastructures and technology platforms.    

Increasingly, we load new expectations on these networks.  Where once our businesses would invest in dedicated private networks we now expect to create our own virtual varieties – carving out capacity from the common but still trying to ensure resilience and a decent quality of service.

Within our private enterprise networks we have long been accustomed to traffic management;  shaping the priorities to reflect our business needs.   All-IP convergence provides new traffic management choices.  Do we now optimise priority for voice telephony packets, for video, for downloads, for email, for web2.0 applications, for getting news from the BBC, for playing games?  What is your corporate policy on blog-blocking or Skype?   ‘First in first out’ express delivery or slower parcel-post for unprofitable (or undesirable) packets?  In this new and flexible world it’s entirely possible for ISP’s make these decisions for us.  They could, and probably will, offer a range of services and tariffs to match their selective perceptions of our requirements, packaged, no doubt, with ‘preferences’ or ‘variable neutrality’. 

You can see where the Netterati are coming from, they fear losing the flexibility and free services of the open and democratic web.  But is it really the case that if you add some new optional capabilities then the old ones are in someway, by implication, diminished?   Well perhaps they will be if these new options mean a drift towards less choice, lower service standards, selective discrimination and a second-class public Internet.  Whose packets go to the front of the queue?   Will content providers fear 21^st century superhighway robbery?  ‘Cash, or cache?’ 

Whoever’s driving these Next Generation Networks you can be sure they’re not coasting in neutral, so CMA members must make hard business choices based on whatever scraps of information we might be able to glean by putting Telco’s, ISP’s and Regulators under the spotlight.

Enterprise management is about clarity of command and control.  Industry regulators cannot, surely, afford to be neutral about real or perceived abuse of market power.

_____________________________________

First published in NetworkingPlus, June 2006