The End of Net Neutrality – An inevitability if we want fast mobile broadband

MLL Telecom - 3 June 2011

Mobile Operators are dealing with surges in data demand that will require an upgrade of their networks. But I doubt this is breaking news to you. The issue of net neutrality is not really news either, but it hasn't achieved anywhere near as much coverage. People can relate to poor connection speeds on their mobile phones, when the '3G' disappears and their BBC app won't load. By comparison, 'net neutrality' is just a debate floating around esoteric IT websites, and causing more of a furore in the United States than it is in the UK. The two issues however are inextricably linked.

The increase in capacity demand is pushing mobile operators to look to ways to fund network upgrades - the bottleneck of which will end up being the backhaul network. Ways of dealing with this are already out there - RAN optimisation for example - but as the number of smart phone users increases, (aggregate smartphone traffic in 2015 will be 47 times greater than it is today according to Deloitte ) so will the costs of dealing with the increase in demand. The question is how will it be paid for?

One solution is to introduce a tiered system whereby the higher payer receives more throughput. This is where the controversy lies. Net neutrality advocates argue that this will give bigger companies and those who can afford to pay an unfair advantage. This in turn could throttle innovation - would You Tube have thrived as it has if it had to pay for its traffic? How do you determine which traffic has priority is also a concern, might Sky BB for example prioritise Sky player over BBC iplayer?

The thing is net neutrality simply isn't viable - traffic prioritisation has been going on for years. By Quality of Service and packet prioritisation technologies service providers are ensuring that the more time-sensitive services, like iplayer, are prioritised over non time-sensitive services like emails. As the iplayers of this world improve their product, it is falling to the service provider to foot the bill - and as more consumers demand high capacity services they will have to pass these costs onto their customers. It is a logical consequence of the way customers are using their mobiles and the internet that soon the current levels of prioritisation will be saturated. To charge to prioritise traffic from certain sites is simply the next step up.

They can make all consumers pay for this - but that could leave some people priced out. Somehow, someone needs to pay for the amount of traffic used on the networks - and it stands to reason that (with caveats to ensure no unfair treatment of competitors) service providers should be allowed to charge you for what you use, just like they do for your gas and electricity.

Add a comment

Comments on this posting