4 Comments

Summary:

Whelp, it looks like the FCC isn’t buying the Netflix and Level 3 arguments that peering is a network neutrality issue. But the agency held out hope that it might review the practice if it felt the need.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is not going to make peering and interconnection fights part of the agency’s revamp of network neutrality, which may disappoint Netflix and Level 3, but shouldn’t surprise them. According to the National Journal, Chairman Wheeler expressed his opinion at a press conference Monday, after which the FCC issued the following statement to clarify the issue:

“Peering and interconnection are not under consideration in the Open Internet proceeding, but we are monitoring the issues involved to see if any action is needed in any other context.”

The FCC didn’t want to comment further, but it sounds like Wheeler reiterated his comments that he made to me back in January when I asked him about peering fights — the disagreements between content companies, large network capacity providers, and the last mile ISPs that can cause consumer headaches. At that time he called interconnection issues a “cousin” of net neutrality issues, and said that the government had a role to play in ensuring that people and businesses were free to interconnect and innovate on the internet.

However, last month, Level 3 and Netflix both came out with statements and FCC filings that sought to have the agency regulate peering as a network neutrality issue under the FCC’s rethink of the Open Internet Order. Their argument was that peering fights are basically a net neutrality problem that occurs farther back in the network. While there are problems with how interconnection agreements are made today, it’s tough to call it a network neutrality issue, especially since the FCC declined to make it one back in 2010 when it implemented the order.

Given Wheeler’s ambivalence around network neutrality and reluctance to make ISPs too unhappy with new rules that would make ISPs into common carriers (subject to stringent rules about how they carry traffic and interconnect) the Netflix and Level 3 arguments seemed like a stretch. But if you never go, you never know.

If the FCC decides to look at peering, my suggestion is that it does so first by getting the data on both the problem of congestion at the links leading into the ISP networks and by finding out how much ISPs are charging for those links. Only when it has data showing a real problem should it act, but if it has that data it should act quickly. Because as a consumer, I’m getting really tired of watching my Amazon Instant Video and Netflix streams buffer or time out.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Muziczone Peter Tuesday, April 1, 2014

    Watch Tvonthego.com and make the web slower.

  2. Of course the FCC won’t be taking this on, the FCC’s already been bought by the access monopolies. Their chief used to lobby for them.

  3. Hey Google fiber are you paying attention? I think the fruit for alternatives is getting ripe. You show up in my world with your constant speed and no throttling I will pay you MORE than I pay Crapcast now for service.

    Make it happen bro!

  4. Michael Elling Thursday, April 3, 2014

    Stacey, not that they were right in 2010 (cause they weren’t), but video didn’t represent 60% of internet traffic, nor was 4K on the horizon, or cloud/condensed radio access, or 2-way HD collaboration, or internet of things (IoT). If you understand the supply and demand forces of all of these rapidly developing trends you will see that they call for intelligence to be pushed to the edge; something referred to as network densification. So natural market forces which the FCC should at least be understanding, modeling and accommodating fly in the face of the ISPs (we should really call them IAPs, as all they do is provide layer 2 access and force upon is their layer 3 switching, which as we learned from the Turks is easily avoided with 8.8.8.8) move to consolidate peering to the core.

    At the end of the day this is just about tradeoffs between layers 2 and 3 across the WAN, MAN, LAN and even PAN (yes Jobs got us interconnect in the mobile device which sparked the smartphone boom). So this is just a continuation of a 100 year struggle of moving the WAN/MAN demarc closer to the core and away from the edge if you are an access provider. So the issues of interconnect/peering and net neutrality are very much related. Mind you I’ve maintained NN is a convenient fiction created by the new internet monopolists to limit entry on their terms….but what do I know? Gosh, maybe the creation of the internet had something to do with that vertical separation of MaBell, and subsequent competitive market digital voice forces in the WAN and anti-competitive flat-rate dial-up pricing of the baby bells. One of the primary, if not major reason the internet scaled so rapidly in the US in the 1990s.

Comments have been disabled for this post