Network Neutrality - Mixed and Other Views On Net Neutrality

Mixed and Other Views On Net Neutrality

Washington Post columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum has called the debate overhyped, saying the claims of both sides are "vague and misleading."

Author Andy Kessler has argued that, though network neutrality is desirable, the threat of eminent domain against the telcos, instead of new legislation, is the best approach.

Columbia University Law School professor Tim Wu observed the Internet is not neutral in terms of its impact on applications having different requirements. It is more beneficial for data applications than for applications that require low latency and low jitter, such as voice and real-time video: "In a universe of applications, including both latency-sensitive and insensitive applications, it is difficult to regard the IP suite as truly neutral." He has proposed regulations on Internet access networks that define net neutrality as equal treatment among similar applications, rather than neutral transmissions regardless of applications. He proposes allowing broadband operators to make reasonable trade-offs between the requirements of different applications, while regulators carefully scrutinize network operator behavior where local networks interconnect. However, it is important to ensure that these trade-offs among different applications be done in a transparent manner so that the general public will have input on important policy decisions. This is especially important as the broadband operators often provide competing services - e.g. cable TV, telephony - that might differentially benefit when the need to manage applications could be invoked to disadvantage other competitors.