What are the positions on net neutrality?

Net neutrality doesn’t allow for priority traffic regulation

Question: What are the positions on net neutrality?
Position‹2 of 2: Net neutrality is bad
Argument‹2 of 3›: Net neutrality doesn’t allow for priority traffic regulation

Not all internet processes and functions have the same intrinsic importance. Net neutrality legislation does not allow for the differentiation of importance, which will ultimately lead to congested traffic, poor service quality, and high wait times.

The argument

In the not too distant future, our appliances will all be connected to the internet of things (IoT). Our dishwasher, thermostat, television, vacuum cleaner, and phones will all run on the same internet connection. For example, let's pose a hypothetical: on a low capacity network, two individuals attempt to complete two separate processes. One is trying to load their smart laundry machine, while the other loading a silly cat video on some media platform. Presumably, the washing machine's signals should take priority over the cat video in a low capacity network. However, Net neutrality forbids assigning any level of priority for internet signals, which could significantly decrease a company's ability to expand capabilities and maintain a minimum standard of quality while staying competitive in the market. PwC research reports indicate that "Wearables, delivery drones, and driverless cars are among the 'killer apps' that require a lot of real-time data and would benefit from preferential treatment in areas with strained network capacity." On a national scale, where autonomous cars and life-saving medical devices are all assigned the same level of traffic importance on our broadband connections as our watches and personal entertainment devices, this inability to prioritize internet traffic is impractical.

Context

Net neutrality means that all internet traffic must be treated with the same level of priority. But not all internet traffic has the same level of importance.

Premises

[P1]As more devices join the internet of things, networks must carry everything from smart appliances to driverless cars and medical devices on the same connection. [P2] On a strained network, urgent signals like a life-saving medical device should take priority over a watch or a cat video. [P3] Net neutrality forbids assigning any such priority, which PwC notes would hold back "killer apps" like drones and autonomous cars that need real-time data. [C] Therefore, because net neutrality doesn't allow for priority traffic regulation, net neutrality is bad.

Counter-arguments

The discussion of IoT in the context of net neutrality is not one that can be determined at this moment. Harold Feld, Senior VP at Public Knowledge, a digital rights group, states that "Even if the IoT increases at the rate everybody’s expecting, it’s still going to be a fairly low percentage of traffic over the network, just because it’s low volume. Telling my house to raise the temperature from 65 to 72 because I’m about to come home is not something that drives network demand". Additionally, with larger projects like cars connected to the grid, etc., and there is an increased demand on the network, it is the responsibility of the commercial companies to keep up and invest in their networks in order to remain competitive in the market. The removal of net neutrality policy could also result in IoT startups becoming dried out and pushed out of the market themselves, significantly reducing the possibility of pushing out innovations!

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise assumes connected devices will strain capacity, which the counter-argument disputes: a thermostat instruction is very low volume, so even rapid growth in the number of devices need not translate into a meaningful share of network load. [Rejecting P2] The medical-device example does not describe how such traffic is actually carried. Safety-critical applications are generally run over dedicated or contracted connections rather than competing with consumer video on a residential line, so the scenario the premise poses may not arise in the form described. [Rejecting P3] "Net neutrality forbids assigning any level of priority" is stated without identifying which rule is meant or what exceptions it contains, and the cited research says such applications would benefit from preferential treatment, not that they require it. The counter-argument adds that removing the rules would also let incumbents disadvantage the very startups the premise says would gain.

Framing

We need a way to assign different values to different internet processes. As a concept, net neutrality prevents internet providers from being able to assign different values to different processes.

Proponents cited

Harsha Madhyastha
“We must answer a key question in order to resolve the debate on network neutrality: How can we legally define the permissible ways an ISP could throttle or prioritize traffic in a manner that does not place undue burden on ISPs, yet is verifiable by third parties?”
AT&T Inc
“In the very near future, technological advances like self-driving cars, remote surgery and augmented reality will demand even greater performance from the internet,...Without predictable rules for how the internet works, it will be difficult to meet the demands of these new technology advances”
Ericsson
“Inflexible rules could undermine the diverse 5G use cases and innovation enabled by quality-of-service distinctions and the availability of different levels of connectivity that could be made available as part of broadband Internet access offerings”
Stuart Carlaw
“The repeal of the net neutrality legislation will enable the communications industry to work within the bounds of a more natural market condition. It will allow those companies that are burdened with the massive expense of rolling out new networks to support 5G (both fixed and wireless) and IoT solutions to be able to generate sufficient revenues to justify investment.”
Ajit Pai
“With the dawn of the Internet of Things, with the development of high bit-rate applications like virtual reality, with new activities like high-volume Bitcoin mining that we can’t yet fully grasp, we are imposing ever more demands on the network. Over time, that means our networks themselves will need to scale, too”