Back in January 2007 I wrote a blog entry trying to explain the basics of network neutrality one more time. This was in response to a Forbes column by Peter Huber that claimed Content Delivery Networks such as those from Akami, were violations of network neutrality. On the contrary, I argued, CDNs were examples of well-designed solutions to deliver a great customer experience while also maintaining the basic tenants of network neutrality. At the time I speculated that the claim that CDNs violated network neutrality was an attempt to confuse the policy debate on the issue.
A recent Forbes article suggests that efforts to confuse the debate are continuing anew. The article March of the SkypeTube from the June 08 edition of Forbes leads me to wonder if there is not still a movement to confuse the debate around network neutrality (especially wireless network neutrality) with a specific bit of misinformation. From the article:
Creating stable economic value in these markets depends on creating stable service-content-bandwidth bundles. Amazon’s Kindle is a good example. The elegant tablet runs on bandwidth that Amazon purchases wholesale from Sprint; Amazon then embeds the cost in the price of the books, magazines and such that it sells and delivers. Everyone prospers–publishers of books and magazines, middlemen like Amazon, manufacturers of the hardware that handles the delivery at the customer’s end and secures copyrights at the same time, and customers, who seem to be delighted with the whole package. Maybe that’s why nobody has dared point out that the whole setup is a grave affront to “network neutrality”–Amazon’s bits get preferential carriage on Sprint’s bandwidth, until Google or Ebay strike their own deals.
I added the emphasis to the claim that Amazon receives preferential treatment for Kindle traffic that moves across Sprin’t network. I have looked and looked for evidence of an arrangement between Sprint and Amazon to give priority to Kindle data packets over other data packets. I have found no such mentions of data prioritization being an element of Amazon’s contract with Sprint for wireless connectivity for Kindle e-book readers. I do not believe that any such arrangement exists, I do acknowledge that details of the contract between Sprint and Amazon are by nature proprietary, and so it is conceivable that Mr. Huber has access to legitimate information that I do not. However, I am fairly certain that this is not the case. Such an arrangement would no doubt cost Amazon a premium, and the latency-tolerant nature of Kindle data does not mandate data prioritization.
Generally when there is a discussion of providing priority to specific types of traffic on an Internet backbone or wireless data network the application being discussed is a latency intolerant application or medium. Real-time media such as voice over Internet, video and high-transaction business applications are put forward as the examples of applications backbone providers would want to prioritize. End users will see a real difference in the experience or the performance of prioritized traffic: the applications will perform noticeably better in most cases where their packets are given higher priority and therefor greater effective throughput from point of original to point of destination.
The electronic books, publications and blog entries on the Kindle are not consumed in real time the same way an on-line video or Internet phone call is. In other words, giving the data priority over other data on Sprint’s wireless network would not make any difference to how the end user experience. The difference in performance would be a matter of seconds for a piece of information that the suer consumes over the course of hours, days or weeks. There is zero reason to give such latency-tolerant data priority.
The fact that electronic books are latency-tolerant, combined with the lack of any mention of priority treatment for Amazon’s data on Sprint’s wireless network, leads me to conclude that indeed no such arrangement exists. As the Obama administration, Congress and the still forming FCC re-examine the debate over network neutrality, I believe this is an attempt to subtly introduce additional confusion into that debate.
