The Mobile Broadband Provider

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

The Internet is being used as an open resource throughout the time it was first invented in the 1990s. It is an effective way of reaching out to the masses, educating them and also receiving valuable feedback. Putting limitations on access to the Internet goes against the First Amendment Right of freedom of speech. Internet should be seen as a single network connecting different end points of the world instead of a multitude of networks. The policy brief aims to evaluate the Open Internet Policy adopted by the FCC. There are many cases of conflict between the broadband application providers and the broadband internet service provider. The most important concentration of the debate is to determine the necessary steps required to ensure access to the Internet for varied content and services by application providers. The rules of the Open Internet Policy are yet unclear and controversial and are needed to be addressed as soon as possible to avoid more conflicts. In this policy brief, on the basis of my knowledge and research, I have given certain policy options and recommendations to the FCC to help them implement changes in the current policies with respect to broadband application providers.

Context and Importance of the problem:

Background: Internet is an open resource tool since its invention and has proven to be an effective means of mass media, communication, news and other information related to education, healthcare, business etc. The most generally accepted concept of net neutrality is that the broadband Internet providers should not exercise control the usage of their network by the customers and should not discriminate against the varied content providers on the Internet. Even as the debate for reforms in the telecommunications market continues, one of the other major concerns was to evaluate whether it is necessary for the policy decision makers to ensure unfettered Internet access to the consumers as well as different broadband application providers [1]. According to the 2005 Internet Policy Statement:

a) Consumers are allowed access to lawful Internet content, run applications and services based on choice

b) Consumers can connect any kind of non-harmful legal network device to the network.

c) Consumers are entitled to competition present among various network, application and service providers [1].

In the famous Comcast v. FCC (2008-2010), Comcast was charged with impeding the traffic generated by the users of BitTorrent application on the Comcast network. In 2008, Comcast sued the FCC for enforcing the 2005 Internet Policy Statement. In 2010, the DC Circuit Court ruled in favor of Comcast effectively nullifying the 2005 Internet Policy Statement [1]. With increase in network usage, increased the network control and pricing. In the past, as the demand for uninterrupted voice, data, video and gaming services increased, network broadband providers started to prioritize their network traffic to ensure a fixed quality of services (QoS). This move created concerns that the network providers will have too much control on giving access to customers and will also be able to discriminate among them. Another issue was the use of Deep Packet Inspection tool used by broadband providers to inspect the header and the data fields of the packets. This allowed the providers to gain access to the content provided by the application. It empowered the network providers to discriminate among the packets on the basis of content and thus causing damage to the consumer as well as the competing application provider. The use or meters for billing purposes causes considerable controversy. Internet providers defined a data usage limit per month and usage of the provider’s services above the usage cap would be charged excessively. It stifled the innovation in high bandwidth applications and also existing services as video based applications are more bandwidth-intensive [1].

While a particular group of policymakers supported the fact there is a need for more specific ordered guidelines to ensure protection from potential abuses that could harm the implementation of the net neutrality idea. The opposing group of policy decision makers argued that the current existing policies are sufficient to protect from any kind of anti-competitive behavior and enforcing further restrictions can cause negative effects on the development and expansion of the Internet [1]. As a result of such conflicts and arguments, the FCC adopted the in December 2010 and November, 2011 the Open Internet Order. The three basic rules adopted in the Open Internet Order are:

I) Complete Transparency: All Internet service providers must disclose exact information of the various exercised network management practices and commercial terms used for Internet access.

II) No Blocking: The Internet service providers cannot block lawful content, services, applications, connection of non-harmful devices and are subject to reasonable management of network.

III) No Discrimination: The Internet service providers cannot discriminate lawful network traffic over the network service provided to the customer [2].

A strong consensus on the issue of net neutrality and the support to the adoption of the Open Internet Order by the FCC has always been mixed and varies according to different governments in different areas. Still there are arguments stating that the FCC has overused its power to regulate the use of the Internet which can cause unnecessary damage. In many legislation (H.R. 96, H.R. 166, S.76, H.R. 2434, H.R. 1, H.R. 3630, H.J.Res 37 AD S.J.Res 6), there has been continuous debate about the implementation of the Open Internet Order by the FCC [1].

Point of View: As broadband application providers, we are in full support of the FCC Open Internet Order for the following reasons:

1. Internet access providers can become gatekeepers and can use such market power to cause hindrance to the users and the rival broadband application providers.

2. Also, the Internet can develop into a two-layered system that is established on ties with network service providers or large businesses [1].

Thus, the adoption of a technique that regulates and prevents the discrimination on the basis of content is a positive step towards maintaining the "openness" of the Internet. It will facilitate for a stable market and allow growth, innovation and also remove any barriers to entry.

Policy Options: There are certain policy options that the FCC can try implementing in order to solve the current problems and avoid further conflicts.

1. Adopting the FCC’s Open Internet Order: The Open Internet Order adopted by the FCC is based is a level-playing field where consumers can make their own choices about different services, applications and content they wish to access [2]. Such openness leads to innovation, competition and increase in investment. The FCC adopted three basic rules to preserve the openness of the Internet and maintain net neutrality.

a. Transparency: According to this rule, the fixed and mobile broadband service providers need to disclose their network management services, performance specifications an all terms and conditions with the end users and all application providers. All information must be disclosed on publicly available websites, should address device attachment rules, security measures, performance characteristics, impact of specialized services, redress options etc. As broadband application providers, we will be able to review the network management practices followed by the ISP and choose a particular ISP depending on the requirements based on our applications.

b. No Blocking: According to this rule, the broadband service providers are prohibited from blocking lawful network access to content, different applications, services etc. Broadband service providers have incentives to promote their own applications and block access to other similar competing applications. Applications such as Netflix, Hulu are gaining widespread popularity among the customers as they provide better services than the ones provided by the ISPs. Thus, by enforcing this rule, the ISPs will be required to allow customers access to all kinds of applications and choose ones that fit best to their requirements. Also, it will promote innovation and research to develop competitive new applications among broadband service providers as they try to compete with such third-party applications [2].

c. No Unreasonable Discrimination: According to this rule, the broadband Internet service providers are prohibited from discriminating between lawful network traffic. This rule would prevent malpractices such as prioritized access, decline in quality of services etc. All applications will be available for access to the customers and there will be no differential treatment among different classes of the network, different applications, services provided, content etc. Again, this is beneficial for the broadband application providers as each application will be treated in the same manner and can be accessed by any customer over any network.

Advantages of adopting the Open Internet Order: Broadband networks are seen as a means of life and economic growth as large number of applications supporting transactions, games, social networking, news etc. are easily available and accessible. According to Pew Internet, there is a 29 % increase in Americans who receive news, video, blog updates from Internet applications [3]. A net neutrality concept with no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination rules ensure that there will no restrictions imposed on the new innovation being researched and will provide encouragement for investment as investors will be assured of access to the network. Broadband service providers have incentives to promote its own applications and block access to other similar applications. Such practices will be put to an end by the adoption of Open Internet Order and will allow consumers to access any lawful application.

Disadvantages of adopting the Open Internet Order: The Open Internet Order does not take into consideration applications, services that require a dedicated Quality of Service (QoS). Some applications such as voice, video, gaming, online streaming etc. have minimum QoS requirements. The Open Internet Order has no mention of rules to allow such applications to meet the required QoS necessities. Also, there is lot of confusion and ambiguity while categorizing "lawful" content. Content that is viewed as "lawful" by some broadband service providers can be considered as unlawful by other broadband providers. This automatically creates a differentiating factor among different applications on the basis of content [2].

2. De-Regulation of the Internet: Another policy option that the FCC can adopt is by adopting a no openness rule which completely invalidates the rules of complete transparency, no blocking and no discrimination. The broadband service providers will act as gatekeepers and are fully empowered to make decisions regarding network management practices on their own.

Advantages of De-Regulation of the Internet: De-regulation of the Internet will eliminate barriers to entry and permit competition among the broadband service provider market. It will lead to lower prices as each ISP will try to set prices lower than its rivals without compromising on their services.

Disadvantages of De-Regulation of the Internet: Broadband service providers will adopt practices to charge end users exorbitantly for access to different applications, services and content. Thus application providers will be required to pay extra fees in order to make their applications available to the end users [2]. Also, service providers will advertise their own applications and block similar third-party applications. Some application providers can enter contracts with service providers to only allow access of their own applications and block all other similar applications. The broadband service providers will soon start managing the Internet by providing services, access to content and applications according to their will and thus undermine the open, people-empowered nature of the Internet. Such practices will discourage the application providers and demote innovation and research in new application methods [2].

Position of other Groups: The adoption of Open Internet Order by the FCC will surely be beneficial to broadband application providers. However, there are certain groups who may express discontent on the adoption of these rules.

Broadband ISPs

The broadband internet service providers would like to oppose the FCCs’s adoption of Open Internet Rules. Their main aim and motive is to generate revenue and attract maximum number of subscribers. Thus, if they are compelled to follow the Open Internet Rules, then they will lose a substantial amount of revenue generating possibilities [2].

Mobile Broadband Provider

The mobile broadband provider will also oppose the FCC’s adoption of the Open Internet Order. They have incentives to promote their own services and applications and would like to be empowered to block or discriminate competing services.

FCC

The FCC promotes competition in the market, investment in research methods to develop new technologies. Openness of the Internet will remove any barriers to entry in the market and remove all possibilities for monopoly.

Public Interest Group

The welfare of the public is the main motto of this group and hence they would surely support the idea of net neutrality. They want that people should have the power to choose and hence transparency rule will allow them to choose different application, different service providers etc. Also, since quality of the content delivered is also an important measure for the public, they will support and advocate FCC’s adoption of Open Internet Order.

Policy Recommendations: After prioritizing the relative pros and cons of the above options, we would like to present certain policy recommendations to the FCC. First, we would like the FCC to make the transparency rule to be mandatory [4]. Thus, the ISPs will be compelled to report their network management practices, network metrics such as bandwidth, pricing schemes, basis of discrimination of applications etc. Also, we suggest that these statistics to be uniform for all the ISPs. Secondly, we recommend the legalization of data caps to monitor the effects of bandwidth sensitive-applications. Thirdly, the FCC also needs to loosen its grip on regulating the Internet. There are certain rules and regulations that are still not clearly defined and specified by the FCC. Thus, we recommend the FCC to provide a more transparent, clear explanation on certain terms such as reasonable management of the network, managed services, specialized services etc [4]. Currently, there are major only four wireless Internet service providers with AT&T and Sprint managing around 62% of the market. We request the FCC to strengthen the rules of wireless internet neutrality in order to avoid monopoly in the coming years. Lastly, we request advocacy organizations for consumers at state level support state legislation to pass rules requiring the ISPs to be transparent, disclose the traffic they will be discrimination and the basis of discrimination and whether a particular traffic will be blocked and the basis on which the blocking will be enacted [5].