Some Traffic Prioritization Makes Sense, Panelists Say
Some panelists bashed the prospect of Title II reclassification of broadband and backed some prioritization of online traffic, speaking Tuesday at a Capitol Hill event hosted by the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy on net neutrality rules and the role of peering agreements.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
There shouldn’t be any rules that “effectively ban technology,” said AT&T Vice President-Public Policy Brent Olson. He praised the values the FCC has discussed as part of the IP transition: “But this is a debate about what’s the right way to advance those values going forward.” Not all applications require the same handling, with email far less sensitive to latency than a VoIP call, Olson said.
Expect Internet traffic to grow at a “substantial clip,” with global Internet traffic tripling over the next five years, said Cisco Government Affairs Vice President Jeff Campbell. He cautioned against Title II reclassification of broadband services, as some net neutrality proponents have requested, and said he suspects the FCC could successfully reinstate net neutrality rules under Communications Act Section 706, and withstand judicial scrutiny. Olson agreed, saying the Title II common carriage rules belong to another era. “To us it’s a proverbial square peg, round hole question,” Olson said. Campbell called himself “a big believer in what’s called sword of Damocles regulation,” citing a belief in companies behaving well due to concern for their reputations and attracting customers.
"To be blunt, that is not even close to my experience,” said Patrick Gilmore, chief technology officer of the Markley Group. He cited “bad acts” that sometimes do not get fixed even when light is shed upon them, largely due to what he sees as lack of competition in some markets. He did say the long tail of Title II is “really scary for ISPs” but “there are things in Title II you do want, like guaranteeing competition, which you don’t have in the United States.”
The net neutrality discussion has devolved past the point when Information Technology & Innovation Foundation President Robert Atkinson thought it couldn’t “get any stupider or sillier,” he said, ripping into the net neutrality segment on HBO’s Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, which went viral in recent weeks. It’s natural that industry blocks certain kinds of traffic, such as malware and child pornography, Atkinson said: “We block -- the question is what kind of blocking.” It’s a “misleading notion” that any company should treat all packets the same, given that VoIP communication should receive higher priority than email, he said. But discrimination of packets shouldn’t be done “willy-nilly” in a way where a company would “do it to punish someone,” Atkinson said. “There will never be a slow lane, and no ISP will ever do that.” Gilmore also said “the idea of a fast lane doesn’t actually exist,” instead comparing the system to a freeway with some cars cutting in line, rather than a system of two pipes.
The advocacy for broadband reclassification is a dangerous, “high-stakes” game, which could result in no net neutrality rules at all, Atkinson said. “The odds of Title II happening are very, very slim, given the nature of this commission right now,” he said. “Congress certainly isn’t going to support it.”
Peering is more complicated than some would suggest, panelists said. “Peering is not free,” AT&T’s Olson said. “Peering requires a lot of investment from those that can do it.” Cisco’s Campbell said peering “negotiations aren’t pretty,” suggesting that’s the reality of those struggles.