IP Convergence: Beyond VoIP, Beyond Cost Savings

The FCC announced the release of its long anticipated NOI on ne t neutrality.  Readers of this blog know where I stand on the issue.  I have long said (before Bruce Owen of the Free State Foundation) that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.  I have also said that the key to a robust Internet are the peering arrangements that form the “network of networks” which comprise the Internet. 

One thing you hear most often from net neutrality proponents is that without net neutrality rules nascent web sites will be deprived of the opportunity to blossom into the next Google, Yahoo!, or YouTube.  To the extent that the proponents are concerned with that wouldn’t the simple solution be to require all consumer broadband Internet providers to complete all “calls” (in this case “URLS’) launched by their customers?  In the telephony world, carriers are required to terminate all calls originated by their customers unless there is an affirmative block on the call either because the originating customer has placed the block to avoid toll charges, or the originating customer placed the block to avoid the content of the terminating service (e.g., chat lines, pay-per-call services, etc.).  Alternatively, called parties can block calls to prevent harassment and other problems.   Can’t an analogous rule apply for Internet services? 

Such a rule would address the core concern expressed by net neutrality proponents, while at the same time it would ensure that peering negotiations remain dynamic and support a robust Internet without interfering with the management of the underlying network of networks.  You see, if a backbone operator has compelling content on its network that consumers want, then even if those consumers are served by a different backbone operator (say one that is integrated with a consumer broadband operator) they would nonetheless be required to interconnect in some way with that backbone operator in order to complete the consumer’s Internet query.  Since the FCC allowed certain consumer broadband operators to vertically integrate by acquiring significant backbone assets, it is only fair for the FCC to say that these operators cannot use their massive base of “eyeballs” to unfairly advantage themselves in peering negotiations. 

No doubt such a rule would favor to some extent content over eyeballs, but by tilting the balance in favor of content over eyeballs, the FCC is ensuring that the incumbent network operators do not leverage their privileged access to eyeballs to the detriment of new entrants.  Moreover, the FCC would ensure that the Internet remains a user-driven, bottoms-up medium and not a top-down medium.  And isn’t that what the Internet is all about?