Net Neutrality vs. Walled Gardens

This week, I've been posting about Ed Markey's proposed Net neutrality law, trying to point out some of the pitfalls involved.  Today, I'll look at the problems with "walled garden" networks that Net neutrality is supposed to solve.

Here are some of the qualities of walled garden networks:

• A limited selection of end-user devices, constrained by the network provider.
• A limited selection of applications that will run on the end user device, constrained by the network provider.
• A limited selection of content available to the end user device, constrained by the network provider.
• The network provider is the monopoly seller of content and applications on the network.

Wireless carrier data networks are the classic walled gardens, because until recently they exhibited most or all of the above qualities, at least when it comes to handsets and some PDAs.  Cable networks also exhibit some of the qualities of walled gardens, with certification programs for set-top boxes and cable modems that are permitted on the network.  However, at least on paper, cable companies allow any application to run on their high-speed Internet services.  Of course, the alleged blocking of BitTorrent traffic by Comcast is a notable exception.

The provisions in the proposed Net neutrality bill call for open access to these networks with any device, any application, and any content, and these are good goals.  However, the legislation is too broad when it applies these freedoms to "broadband telecommunications networks, including the Internet."  What broadband telecommunications networks other than the Internet should be covered by the legislation?  Surely, this kind of legislation shouldn't apply to private corporate data networks, should it?  I don't believe the bill's authors were aiming at any network other than the Internet, so the language should be tightened to say what they meant.

What about certification programs for network devices?  Can a network provider require that only certified devices may be used on their networks?  I would hope that as long as the certification program is non-discriminatory, then certification programs should be allowed.  In the case of DOCSIS cable modems, the quality of service and security mechanisms of the network could be mis-used if un-certified devices were allowed on the network.  To be sure, this is already a risk for the cable companies, because it is hard to police, but it would get much harder to enforce if a broadband policy change were to encourage the mass manufacturing of uncertified cable modems.   Similarly, Verizon's new open network policy still requires certification of open handsets.

So, here's my net neutrality scorecard, so far:

1. Allowing any device on the network - in favor, with certification steps allowed
2. Allowing any application to work on the network - in favor
3. Allowing any content on the network - in favor
4. Allowing any seller of applications or content on the network - in favor
5. Prohibiting prioritization of some traffic over other traffic - against
6. Prohibiting selective blocking of some traffic for network management purposes - against
7. Requiring Internet providers to fully disclose the traffic blocking and traffic shaping policies to subscribers prior to subscription - in favor
8. Prohibiting anti-competitive traffic blocking by network providers - in favor
9. Extending Net neutrality freedoms beyond the Internet - against