Net neutrality is only the beginning of an open internet

US regulators are voting on whether to enshrine the openness of the internet, and the outcome is likely to influence policy worldwide

Net neutrality is the principle of making sure that your internet service provider doesn't make it easier for you to access one service over another - the Guardian over the Telegraph, say - or otherwise distorting your use of internet services just because someone dropped a few extra quid in their pocket

Yet in many ways, the current battle over net neutrality is less a question of broad, public-interest internet values, and more a parochial telecommunications policy war between US cable and content companies, waged on global stage

After more than a decade of wrangling, on 26 February an executive board of US telecommunications regulator the FCC will vote on a 322-page proposal, titled Preserving the Open Internet. Matters of deep principle are claimed to be at stake, but agreement on what those principles are is less forthcoming

The internet is not unlimited

Nobody can object to aspirations such as neutrality, equality and openness. But each of these terms is also a conceit. The internet is not unlimited. Traffic management, in some form or another, is obligatory in shipping digital packets

When you make a phone call, your voice is sampled 50 times a second, and then reconstituted at the receiving end, with a minuscule delay to account for any network failings

When you call up an internet application or website, that site or service is hurled at you, progressively increasing as many packets as the network can carry, unless something else gets in the way. If voice gets in the way, the application adapts. If it's the other way around, voice drops out

Network engineer Fred Baker uses this distinction between voice and web, or between "real-time" and "elastic" applications, to demonstrate one of the consequences of a rigid application of net neutrality rules. If everything must be treated equally, he argues, then nothing can be done about your voice line dropping. You are subject to the internet service provider's best efforts - "passing your traffic to the enemy, and hoping for the best". With voice, this is usually fine - we can cope with some small delay. With video and other data-rich streaming, it becomes more complicated

Is there only one form net neutrality?

In the first order, net neutrality is the Telegraph / Guardian example: ensuring that internet service companies don't intentionally block or degrade access to legal content or services. At this level, there is little controversy. Rules against such practices are welcome, even if there is little evidence that it is a market problem requiring fixing

One of the damaging side-effects, nevertheless, is that a crude assessment of legality could unfairly prevent the bulk of upstream traffic and a significant proportion of downstream traffic in many parts of the world that is comprised of peer-to-peer file sharing

Second-order net neutrality is about the voice / web challenge - the detail of traffic management - and it's much harder. In particular, there is a heated debate over paid prioritisation, or "fast lanes", negotiated between ISPs and content providers. Here, the market is already active

Streaming companies such as Netflix have complex "peering" arrangements with cable companies to fund good service and make up for some of the vast percentage of the cable traffic Netflix uses

Another area where such arrangments are manifold is mobile, and the meat of the FCC proposal focuses on these issues. But it is not clear whether it is just about ensuring public-interest oversight of peering arrangements, or actually interfering with the arrangements that can be made. Either way, the US now seems to recognise that public regulation of bandwidth, to ensure the public interest is met, is the appropriate foundation for such regulation, bringing into line with the rest of the world.

What this debate doesn't solve

Net neutrality has been the central campaign point for a grassroots movement of internet activists in the US. It has an obvious bad guy in the fat cat cable companies, but it's as much about the incredibly consolidated and monopolistic US telco landscape, and the geoeconomic aversion to internet regulation, as it is about wider, public interest internet issues

The rather extraodinary thing is that over-the-top services - the content providers - have come off as the white knights. Just like artists and struggling musicians are the frontmen of the industry copyright lobby, here start-ups and bloggers are the frontmen to the internet giants. In the end, however, we're all small fish to Facebook, Google, Amazon and their kin

Net neutrality is no panacea to walled gardens, tethering, transit providers that exploit exchange-point congestion, and content-delivery networks that outpace the speed of light in giving me access to Google and Amazon quicker than the Guardian or the Greek national library. Your access to a small newspaper or voice application, is slow not because of shady service network infrastructure and network entrenchment of its competitors

We citizens, often derogated as "users" or "consumers", have much to win in a global communication space. That is much more than simply a "neutral network". Instead, it is a truly open, distributed network where everyone's fundamental rights are respected. Not having our access providers acting as interested gatekeepers may be a step in the right direction, but it is by no means an end. Many other distortive factors remain and we will not have an open space until we get rid of them all

will not have an open space until we get rid of them all

many other distortive factors remain

by no means an end

it is by no means an end

may be a step in the right direction

not having our access providers acting as interested gatekeepers

everyone's fundamental rights are respected

is a truly open, distributed network

instead, it is a truly open, distributed network

is much more than simply a neutral network

have much to win in a global communication space

derogated as "users" or "consumers"

network entrenchment of its competitors

shade service network infrastructure

is slow not because of shady service network infrastructure and network entrenchment of its competitors

your access to a small newspaper

giving me access to Google and Amazon quicker than the Guardian

outpace the speed of light in giving me access to Google and Amazon quicker than the Guardian or the Greek national library

exploit exchange-point congestion, and content-delivery networks

is no panacea

transit providers

is no panacea to walled gardens, tethering, transit providers

their kin

are all small fish to Facebook, Google, Amazon and their kin

start-ups and bloggers are the frontmen to the internet giants

are the frontmen of the industry copyright lobby

struggling musicians are the frontmen of the industry copyright lobby

have come off as the white knights

have come off as the white knights

is that over-the-top services

the rather extraordinary thing is that over-the-top services

is about wider, public interest internet issues

the geoeconomic aversion to internet regulation

the incredibly consolidated and monopolistic US telco landscape

is as much about the incredibly consolidated and monopolistic US telco landscape

has an obvious bad guy in the fat cat cable companies

a grassroots movement

a grassroots movement of internet activists in the US

has been the central campaign point for a grassroots movement of internet activists in the US

bringing into line with the rest of the world

is the appropriate foundation for such regulation

to ensure the public interest is met

either way, the US now seems to recognise that public regulation of bandwidth

interfering with the arrangements that can be made

ensuring public-interest oversight of peering arrangements

is not clear whether it is just about ensuring public-interest oversight of peering arrangements

the meat of the FCC proposal

the meat of the FCC proposal focuses on these issues

where such arrangements are manifold is mobile

another area where such arrangements are manifold is mobile

make up for some of the vast percentage of the cable traffic Netflix uses

to fund good service

have some complex peering arrangements with cable companies

streaming companies such as Netflix have complex "peering" arrangements with cable companies

the market is already active

"fast lanes", negotiated between ISPs and content providers

over paid prioritisation

is a heated debate over paid prioritisation

in particular, there is a heated debate over paid prioritisation

the detail of traffic management

second-order net neutrality is about the voice / web challenge

is comprised of peer-to-peer file sharing

in many parts of the world

a significant proportion of downstream traffic in many parts of the world

the bulk of upstream traffic

could unfairly prevent the bulk of upstream traffic

a crude assessment of legality

is that a crude assessment of legality could unfairly prevent the bulk of upstream traffic

one of the damaging side-effects, nevertheless

requiring fixing

is little evidence that it is a market problem requiring fixing

rules against such practuces are welcome

at this level, there is little controversy

degrade access to legal content

ensuring that internet service companies don't intentionally block or degrade access to legal content

in the first order

it becomes more complicated

other data-rich streaming

can cope with some small delay

passing your traffic to the enemy

are subject to the internet service provider's best efforts

nothing can be done about your voice line dropping

must be treated equally

the consequences of a rigid application of net neutrality rules

to demonstrate one of the consequences of a rigid application of net neutrality rules

elastic applications

between real-time and elastic applications

uses this distinction between voice and web

drops out

is the other way around, voice drops out

if voice gets in the way, the application adapts

gets in the way

unless something else gets in the way

progressively increasing as many packets as the networks can carry

is hurled at you

call up an internet application or website

to account for any network failings

with a minuscule delay to account for any network failings

at the receiving end

reconstituted at the receiving end

is sampled 50 times a second

is obligatory in shipping digital packets

is also a conceit

each of these terms is also a conceit

can object to aspirations such as neutrality, equality and openness

is not unlimited

is less forthcoming

agreement on what those principles are is less forthcoming

at stake

to be at stake

matters of deep principle are claimed to be at stake

titled Preserving the Open Internet

will vote on a 322-page proposal

an executive board of US telecommunications regulator

after more than a decade of wrangling

waged on global stage

more a parochial telecommunications policy war between US cable and content companies

public-interest internet values

the current battle over net neutrality is less a question of broad

dropped a few extra quid in their pocket

otherwise distorting your use of internet services just because someone dropped a few extra quid in their pocket

the Guardian over the Telegraph

to access one service over another

for you to access one service over another

is the principle of making sure that your internet service provider doesn't make it easier for you to access one service over another

the outcome is likely to influence policy worldwide

US regulators are voting on whether to enshrine the openness of the internet

net neutrality is only the beginning of an open internet