Fair is fair
By Charles Miller

Recently in the news was the report that the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) proposed broad new rules that would force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) under their jurisdiction to treat all Internet traffic equally. The move would make good on a campaign promise by the new administration to support net neutrality, but is certain to trigger a battle with phone and cable companies, which do not want the government telling them how to run their business.

Briefly, companies such as Microsoft, Google and Yahoo are seeking to give consumers greater freedom to use their computers or cell phones to legally enjoy videos, music and other bandwidth-intensive services. Companies such as AT&T Inc and Comcast Corp, which do not provide the services but do own the wires, cables and servers over which these services must travel, want to be able to control what data travels via their networks.

Wireless carriers such as AT&T limit what kind of data travels over the airwaves they control. Earlier this year, AT&T restricted phone service from their competitor Skype so iPhone users could not place free calls on AT&T’s cellular network.

The proposed new FCC rules could change how US operators manage their networks by requiring them to treat all traffic equally. This means carriers could no longer block or slow down access to sites that place a strain on their networks or services offered by their competitors.

From a technical standpoint, I understand why ISPs need to be able to control the traffic passing through their networks. It is absurd and completely unworkable for any regulatory agency to tell the ISPs that their users (Microsoft, Google, etc.) have the right to put any kind and any volume of traffic on the networks and the owners of the networks (AT&T, Comcast, etc.) have nothing to say about it.

The ISPs simply must retain control over their networks lest the system crash. The question is how and what methods the owners of the networks should be permitted to use to keep the Internet up and running.

It surprises me none of the articles I have read this week address what I believe to be the central issue. What may come out of these new regulations is something that has been lacking among ISPs, and that is honesty in advertising.

For years ISPs have advertised “unlimited” Internet access, while in fact this is a fraud. Subscribers who use too much of that “unlimited” bandwidth usually find out there is something the ISPs call “fair use,” meaning in fact there is always a limit to their so-called “unlimited” Internet access. Fair use policies are sometimes written down, sometimes arbitrarily enforced. ISPs rarely tell anyone what the limit is because they do not want consumers to be able to shop around or compare one provider to another.

If the new FCC regulations force the ISPs to stop discriminating against certain types of traffic, the only other way for them to control traffic is through pricing. In that case, I would suggest they take a hint from Telmex and the way they charge for residential telephone service. Subscribers get 100 local calls, after which they are billed extra for each call. Someone who makes thousands of calls is charged more. Telmex is honest about their policy, which is the fairest and most equitable I can imagine.

The day is coming that the communications companies will have to tell customers there is no limit to how much bandwidth they may use, but if they use 100 or 1000 times more Internet bandwidth than normal, they will pay extra for it.

Charles Miller is a freelance computer consultant, a frequent visitor to San Miguel since 1981 and now practically a full-time resident. He may be contacted at 044 (415) 101-8528 or email FAQ8 (at) SMAguru.com.
.