InterNeutrality on the Internet

I followed some of the recent talks about net neutrality, the spin on that which has been called "ISP transparency" and what appears to be the outcome and current FCC thinking as recently expressed by the chairman.

It occurs to me that we're at real risk of the Internet continuing to develop like our national highway system, our power grid and our health care system, all of which are teetering on the cusp between maximum capacity and breaking down. The capacity problems are about peak load and a small population taking advantage of the lack of controls. I could draw some parallels but many should seem obvious: poor drivers equate to health-maintenance-by-emergency-room use equate to torrent spams equate to air conditioners in uninsulated buildings. To be able to even have discussion about "neutrality" (i.e., sustainable systems for all users), we need to address root abuses on both sides: provider and consumer.

Any neutrality regulation also has to take on applications which will attempt to maximize their own utilization without regard to total availability. Yes, one could argue that it is not the domain of the application engineer to control that, but then you've put the onus back on the ISP for balance. Consider the ways that our highways have developed, with every individual deciding when and where they will drive and the concomitant traffic jams that occur. Out power grids suffer the same demand load balancing problems. We have clear examples of how a complete hands-off policy doesn't maximize our resource investment. So "net neutrality" should not be cover for hamstringing net management just as it shouldn't be cover for ISPs who are also content providers (e.g. Comcast) to be able to provide preferential treatment for their own revenue enhancements (e.g., video on demand).

This is a deep problem, and heavy hands by regulation is the most likely potential cause to exacerbate the problem. Too much, too soon is a real hazard. A working group study to find a "neutral" (to coin a phrase) balance between technical and social demands.

In the meantime, the FCC and congress both would find their time better spent to make sure that the access needs of the populace are met before slicing up bandwidth for the privileged. TV box subsidies are fine, but how about "lifeline" data access for all, much as voice access is subsidized for the poor and fixed-income elderly. That would be true "net egalitarianism", a step beyond "neutrality".