Summary
AT&T's call for action misses the distinction between the justification for regulation of "net neutrality" in traffic management over access networks as compared to applications. It is also ironic that politicians who say they are in favor of small businesses object to regulations designed to protect them against potential abuse by large businesses.
Analysis
If Google Voice is found to be objectionable by consumers because it blocks calls to some numbers they would like to access then they are free to choose alternative, truly open VoIP applications that do not. This applications market is inherently much more competitive than the one for broadband access, and hence not in need of regulation. Google would only be abusing the principles of "net neutrality" if it were to collude with operators and/or terminal vendors to exclude VoIP applications other than theirs from being available to customers. I am also not sure what harm is being caused to consumers by being blocked from doing something through a free service, as if you were offered a complimentary drink but one kind of beer was not made available. Also by arguing that Google should be treated like other so-called "gatekeepers" in terms of obligations to be "open" and "neutral" is AT&T agreeing that these obligations should indeed apply to "gatekeepers"? Or is it saying that there are two wrongs, namely that neither Google nor others including itself should be subject to these obligations, or in other words that two wrongs do not make but are actually both right? The two additional principles recently enunciated by the FCC seem very reasonable i.e. no discrimination in terms of content or applications, and a requirement that operators are explicit about what traffic management techniques they use. Indeed these new principles may be more universally justifiable as well as more fundamental than one of the earlier 4 principles, namely requiring that any device should be allowed to access a network, since the interactions between devices, especially wireless terminals, and access networks do make an equipment approval process necessary. Services and applications are what count for customers, more than the platforms on which they are available as long as these come in a reasonable variety and are offered in a competitive market for devices. It is difficult for third parties, including regulators, to tell whether an operator is violating net neutrality. Vigilant expert users and others should be able to play a useful role in early detection of any such violations, for which purpose the more they know about what is going on in the network the more likely it is that they will be able to distinguish between the effects of legitimate traffic management and results which involve actual "net partisanship" or discrimination. It is ironic that many politicians who object to the principles the FCC is trying to establish for "net neutrality" also present themselves as champions of small businesses and entrepreneurs, who are most vulnerable to damage from any "net partisanship" that might be practised by large established operators and services providers.
This author consults with leading institutions through GLG
Analyses are solely the work of the authors and have not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
