Would 'Real' Network Neutrality Outlaw CDNs?
It’s a message worth repeating to network neutrality absolutists: Be careful what you wish for.
As the FCC gets ready to release its draft of network neutrality rules Dec. 21, some activists are demanding that the agency’s rules include a ban on “paid prioritization” (see Sources: Some Movement On Paid Prioritization, ISP Definition In Net Neutrality Draft).
But what does that mean?
According to this Dec. 10 letter to the FCC from a coalition of public interest advocates, consumer groups and others led by Free Press, “Paid prioritization is the antithesis of openness.”
The letter continues, “Any framework that does not prohibit such economic discrimination arrangements is not real Net Neutrality. Without a clear ban on such practices, ISPs will move forward with their oft-stated plans to exploit their dominant position and favor their own content and services and those of a few select paying partners through faster delivery, relegating everyone else to the proverbial dirt road.”
The New York Times weighs in on the issue with an editorial Saturday, arguing, “If corporations could pay for faster carriage of their content nothing would stop them from divvying up the broadband capacity, condemning less well-financed sources to move at a snail’s pace.”
The trouble with this position is that, if codified into FCC rules, it would arguably ban content distribution networks — such as those run by Akamai Technologies, Limelight Networks and Level 3 Communications — whose sole purpose is to deliver content more quickly for large-scale content providers that can afford to pay for the privilege. CDNs do this by caching content more closely to last-mile access networks.
So the truth is that “paid prioritization” is already widely practiced: Google, YouTube and Amazon can afford to employ CDNs, while the corner mom-and-pop store can’t.
And outlawing CDNs wouldn’t make the Internet better for everyone else. It will only make it worse for the biggest, most popular websites — and their users.
It may sound democratic to forbid the wealthiest Web content owners to have a “fast lane” on the Internet versus the “dirt road” available to the rest of us, but in practice the (unintended) consequences could be disastrous. It’s an example of the difficulty in translating network neutrality concepts into actual, enforceable rules (see Down In the Weeds of Network Neutrality).
Anyway, if you think banning “paid prioritization” on the Internet is a good idea, why wouldn’t you also support making FedEx illegal, or agitate for the U.S. Postal Service to eliminate Priority Mail?
Todd Spangler commented:
Actually, no, a CDN is not a cheaper option for a content owner in your example.
edgarman commented:
TS -
No, I don't think Yahoo et al pay for CDN capacity to do Comcast a favor; they do it to reduce their traffic costs, but in so doing they reduce Comcast's as well.
Surely you understand that?
Todd Spangler commented:
edgarman — Let me get this straight: You believe Yahoo et al. pay for CDNs in order to do **Comcast** a favor, by offloading Comcast’s backbone network?
edgarman commented:
You can tell it's holiday season when such a thinly supported argument merits a column.
Yes, CDNs "deliver content more quickly" but that's neither their "sole purpose" or even their primary purpose.
CDNs pre-cache mostly lightweight content at ISPs facilities primarily to reduce the amount of redundant traffic that flows over peering networks. So, for example, a popular Yahoo page might be cached in Comcast's facilities, so that every time a Comcast subscriber accesses the same page, it doesn't have to travel from Yahoo's primary servers in Sunnyvale across the internet where it would create the need for more peering capacity in Comcast's network centers.
To equate this to an ISP throttling traffic is silly and misinformed.
Maxvik commented:
Why aren't FCC and MSO's (like Comcast) REALLY looking at this from a consumers (popularity - Neilsen's, etc.) point of view (notwithstanding what the NYT or others say)?
It would put all content on the same speed footing and let popularity decide which needs to be prioritized (or speeded up) - this would address all camps for or against this to a large extent. It recognizes that as in life you do not please all the people all the time, but some people some of the time at least. Charging for this extra priority is another matter in itself (democratic or not - which the FCC can decide).