Net neutrality advocates misconstrue reasonable network management practices

Could P2P blocking be legalized by new net neutrality rules? [Ars Technica]

The Federal Communications Commission is in the process of considering whether to adopt a set of rules that would impose regulations on how Internet providers manage the traffic on their networks. Because network bandwidth is a finite resource, ISPs employ various management techniques to ensure that all users are receiving the quality Internet experience that they expect. Should the FCC choose to adopt so-called network neutrality rules, the federal government might find themselves in the position of having to decide how providers manage their networks. 

With a draft of the proposed rules released to the public - network neutrality advocates are calling foul, according to this post from Ars Technica. Apparently even the ability for ISPs to reasonably manage their network - based on a clause in the draft rules - doesn't go far enough in the view of the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF).

Unfortunately if groups like the Electronic Freedom Foundation got their way with network neutrality regulations, freedom would be the last thing that many ISP users would experience.

Reasonable network management serves the purpose of allowing all users to have fair access to the network resources. Without it, a small minority of users would dominate the use of shared resources, degrading the Internet experience of nearly all network users. 

As the FCC considers these rules, it's important that they remain focused on the facts about reasonable network management and the critical result it provides to Internet users rather than the overblown rhetoric of net neutrality groups like the EFF.

Comments

[Beemer]

The problem is that ISP's don't want 'reasonable network management'. Throttling the speed of users, if they consume a stated amount within a stated period AND are a problem to other users, is reasonable. Throttling or blocking because they are using a certain protocol or application is unreasonable and unacceptable. The clause in the rules allows for the latter, and thus the EFF's issue.