The US Federal Communications Commission should allow for an open Internet separate from specialised services that may prioritise IP traffic, a group of Internet and technology pioneers have recommended.
The recommendations were mentioned in a document filed by the group of 32 Internet experts, in response to FCC's request for public comments on its proposed network neutrality rules.
The document steers clear of recommending what rules should apply to the open Internet. But the distinctions between the open Internet and specialised Internet Protocol services, if allowed, need to be "defined clearly", the group of 32 Internet experts said in comments to the FCC.
"If a service provides prioritised access to a particular application or endpoint/destination, it is not an open Internet service," the group said. "Representations as to capacity and speed for the Internet must describe only capacity and speed allocated to Internet service."
The group's paper also suggested that little network management would be needed on the open Internet, if separate specialised services exist.
Among the tech experts signing the document are Steve Wozniak, cofounder of Apple; Bruce Perens, founder of the open source software movement; Clay Shirky, an author and lecturer at New York University's Interactive Telecommunications Program; and David Reed, a contributor to the development of TCP/IP and an adjunct professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab. The group praised the FCC for examining the role of specialised, or managed, services in the ongoing debate over net neutrality rules.
Public comments were due Thursday in response to FCC questions on whether proposed net neutrality rules, prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing IP traffic, should apply to specialised services and to mobile carriers. Google and Verizon Communications suggested that specialised services and mobile carriers be exempted from net neutrality rules in a joint proposal released in August, and many pro-net neutrality groups criticised Google for backing the exemptions.
Some net neutrality advocates are concerned that specialised IP services will "cannibalise the capacity or the content of the Internet," said Chris Riley, policy counsel at Free Press, a digital rights group supporting stronger rules. "We're worried that this is going to become an unlimited exemption from nondiscrimination."
But Free Press agrees with the document, in that it suggests an open Internet should be free from traffic prioritization, Riley said. The paper also recognizes that specialized services shouldn't replace the open Internet, he noted.
A "truth-in-labeling" proposal from the FCC and a requirement that specialized services be significantly different from the Internet could help protect broadband customers, said David Isenberg, a telecom consultant and author of the 1997 paper, The Rise of the Stupid Network.
"If a user of a service thinks he/she is getting the open Internet, but instead is getting a managed service, that would be detrimental," said Isenberg, who signed the group's paper. "It would also be detrimental if the open Internet were throttled, slowed, or was not subject to upgrade on the same path as managed services."
MIT's Reed said he's more concerned about efforts by broadband providers to discriminate against some web traffic than by competition from specialised services.
"Today the open Internet is allocated a fraction of the capacity delivered over broadband services over fiber and coax by the providers, yet users and services (such as TV and telephony) are migrating to the open Internet and away from those specialised services," he said by email. "There's a good reason - there are better, more innovative services on the open Internet than any one provider can build itself."
The paper also questioned the need for heavy network management when specialised IP services carry priority traffic, unless broadband providers weren't delivering on their bandwidth promises.
The FCC's proposed net neutrality rules would allow for "reasonable network management," but there's an ongoing debate over what the term means.
The open Internet would not require network management "unless the congestion was caused by less capacity being available than the provider offers to subscribers," the Internet pioneers' paper said. "It would only be made necessary by the fact that the capacity represented as available by the providers is not available in fact."
Broadband providers have suggested they need to manage networks to protect customers from so-called bandwidth hogs. Reed and Isenberg both protested the term.
"Other names for them would be power users, Internet enthusiasts, and harbingers of tomorrow's median user," Isenberg said. "They're predictable, just as bandwidth hogging events are predictable, so if an Internet access company does not provision for such events, they're offering an inferior product."