How will we know when the Internet is dead?

Are we moving towards two Internets? Or are we devolving towards an Internet along with something that superficially resembles the 'Net, but isn't? A small battalion of noted broadband engineers, developers, and academics have sent the Federal Communications Commission a thank you letter for simply noticing this dichotomy—an "open" version of cyberspace that treats all packets equally, versus an emergent space where ISPs will spawn a range of priority accessed products that the agency calls "specialized services."

"Your addressing this distinction in itself enables the analysis and pursuit of policy goals to proceed with a profound new level of clarity," wrote Apple Computer cofounder Steve Wozniak, New America Foundation technologist Robb Topolski, and over 30 other writers on Thursday:

If you only establish a mandate to analyze the market in these terms, you will have moved the policy framework forward definitively. The prospect of technological developments making possible specialized treatment of some applications, without differentiating these practices from Internet service, has obscured the greater value of the general purpose platform that application-independent treatment of packets makes possible.

In other words, the FCC has built the conceptual framework necessary to notice when the open Internet has become closed.

Sensitive to risks

When did the Commission accomplish this? Back in December the FCC proposed two additions to the agency's four-part Internet Policy Statement, which says that consumers have the right to access the legal devices of their choice over the 'Net. These add-ons included an explicit clause forbidding discrimination by ISPs and a transparency rule requiring them to disclose their network management practices.

But the full proposal also asked for comment on whether a broad category called "managed or specialized services" should receive an exemption from these provisions.

We recognize that these managed or specialized services may differ from broadband Internet access services in ways that recommend a different policy approach, and it may be inappropriate to apply the rules proposed here to managed or specialized services. However, we are sensitive to any risk that the growth of managed or specialized services might supplant or otherwise negatively affect the open Internet. In this section, we seek comment on whether and, if so, how the Commission should address managed or specialized IP-based services in order to allow providers to develop new and innovative technologies and business models and to otherwise further the goals of innovation, investment, competition, and consumer choice, while safeguarding the open Internet.

The FCC cited a variety of possible offerings that could fit into these categories: among them telemedicine, smart grid, or eLearning applications. Perhaps AT&T's U-Verse video fare, offered across the same networks as its fiber Internet service, could qualify for this class.

The agency also requested comment on what impact these specialized services might have on the open Internet.

"Will managed or specialized services increase or reduce investment in broadband network deployment and upgrades?" the FCC asked out loud. "Will network providers provide sufficient capacity for robust broadband Internet access service on shared networks used for managed or specialized services?"

The key distinction

These commentators think that this distinction between the open Internet and specialized services is key to ciphering where the 'Net could go in the near and distant future. The concept "is very helpful on its own terms to understanding the implications of various concerns surrounding this issue."

Why? Because for all practical purposes, specialized services are fundamentally different, they argue, even if, in their defense, they handle problems like latency, jitter, and congestion in new and creative ways.

"The Internet should be delineated from specialized services specifically based on whether network providers treat the transmission of packets in special ways according to the applications those packets support," the statement contends. "Transmitting packets without regard for application, in a best efforts manner, is at the very core of how the Internet provides a general purpose platform that is open and conducive to innovation by all end users."

And that goes for prioritized services too. "If a service provides prioritized access to a particular application or endpoint/destination, it is not an open Internet service. Representations as to capacity and speed for the Internet must describe only capacity and speed allocated to Internet service."

As long as research into specialized services didn't recognize the distinction between the specialized services concept and the open Internet, "policy-making channels have not recognized the inherent value of the general purpose platform—and how this platform reflects the values of openness, free expression, competition, innovation and private investment."

Now, thanks to the FCC, that difference is out there to consider.

Are we on the open Internet or not?

This is a good thing, the letter argues, because as we move further into a deregulated broadband environment, ISPs will experiment more and more with the "tailored" treatment of packets, depending on what applications end users deploy.