| dc.description |
We propose a quality of service (QoS) monitoring program for broadband access
to measure the impact of proprietary network spaces. Our paper surveys other
QoS policy initiatives, including those in the airline, and wireless and wireline
telephone industries, to situate broadband in the context of other markets
undergoing regulatory devolution. We illustrate how network architecture can
create impediments to open communications, and how QoS monitoring can
detect such effects. We present data from a field test of QoS-monitoring software
now in development. We suggest QoS metrics to gauge whether information
"walled gardens" represent a real threat for dividing the Internet into proprietary
spaces.
To demonstrate our proposal, we are placing our software on the computers of a
sample of broadband subscribers. The software periodically conducts a battery of
tests that assess the quality of connections from the subscriber's computer to
various content sites. Any systematic differences in connection quality between
affiliated and non-affiliated content sites would warrant research into the
behavioral implications of those differences. If, however, the data shows that
there are no chronic biases in connection quality, then it would be fair to
conclude that the walls on the garden are low enough not to be detrimental to
public communications.
QoS monitoring is timely because the potential for the Internet to break into a
loose network of proprietary content domains appears stronger than ever. Recent
court rulings and policy statements suggest a growing trend towards relaxed scrutiny of mergers and the easing or elimination of content ownership rules.
This policy environment could lead to a market with a small number of large,
vertically integrated network operators, each pushing its proprietary content on
subscribers.
The move towards proprietary space conflicts with the open philosophy on
which the Internet was founded. That alone, however, is not a reason for
regulators to intervene. Policy makers require empirical evidence that
proprietary barriers require a public response. Unfortunately, traditional
indicators of harm to consumers from industry mergers, like measures of
programming diversity on cable systems, are insufficient when Internet
connectivity becomes the norm for access networks.
Conventional measures of diversity make little sense if all providers offer access
to the Internet. Any differences in information variety resulting from special,
proprietary content would be swamped by the content of the Internet. What
matters more than a binary measure of availability are the quality and equality of
the connection to diverse content providers over access networks.
It is unlikely that an Internet access provider would completely block the content
of its competitors. Any provider wishing to steer subscribers away from nonaffiliated
content would be more likely to do so by delivering that content at a
slightly lower quality compared to affiliated content. The degradation of quality
need not be blatant to be effective--a differential of a few milliseconds between
affiliated and unaffiliated sites should suffice to condition users to abandon nonaffiliated,
"slower" content sources. A QoS monitoring system would alert
policymakers to the development of such scenarios. |
|