The NY Times has a great op-ed on "Net Neutrality" this week, which got me thinking… Is the expectation of total and complete internet neutrality realistic and do we even understand what that might entail?

First, let's look at what net neutrality might actually be defined as.  Strangely, when discussing net neutrality, often examples of net non-neutrality are cited. These are typically cases where Internet Service Providers (ISP's) have blocked various applications or throttled the heavy bandwidth consumption from heavy users.  From my point of view, net neutrality is not just an ISP issue, concerning what they will allow or not allow, but a Carrier Ethernet issue as well.  A packet typically travels across dozens of networks owned by different companies from source to destination. Any one of these networks could decide to impede, limit, or throttle the packet depending upon a wide range of attributes, including where it originated from, the type of packet, the host application, etc.  On one hand, if every carrier in the world decided to start doing as it pleased with any packets traversing its network, the internet would cease to function as we know it today.  On the other hand, faced with a deluge of packets, carriers are being forced to at least set some guidelines, limits, and rules.

After all, is there really neutrality on wireless networks today?  Several "people in the know" have told me that when wireless channels reach capacity, or a call in session crosses a cell boundary, priority is given to "in network" subscribers over roaming out-of-network consumers. (Please correct me, if I am wrong here).  Furthermore, if we consider internet access a utility, is there really neutrality on other utilities?  For example, at times when electricity demand exceeds supply, do not sectors deemed critical have first priority?  Staying with the electricity analogy, I may have the perception of grid neutrality as a consumer, but if I were to suddenly increase my usage 10X, I would quickly find out that a whole new set of rules and rates applies to my consumption (this has actually happened to me).  Similarly, the internet may reach a point where the average consumer has the illusion of neutrality, while heavy users are treated differently, and users deemed critical perhaps get a faster lane.

So where am I going with all of this?  Now, more than ever, Service Level Agreements (SLA's) and Ethernet Service Assurance (ESA) is important.  As aforementioned, a packet will traverse a dozen disparate networks in its path from source to destination.  The tools exist today to monitor the packet over each of these links, and understand the level of service it has been granted.  As ISP's and carriers begin to set boundaries, limits, and rules to packets over their networks, it becomes imperative that an end consumer or business be able to transparently measure, in-service, the actual performance they are achieving end-to-end.  If a packet consumer then discovers that one provider in the path is throttling their bandwidth, it becomes a simple business issue, not a political one.

In the end, perhaps the idea of net-neutrality, while noble and righteous, is a bit naïve, as the basic principles of supply and demand will always triumph.  Today, demand is at times outstripping supply, and given that the explosion in bandwidth consumption is only getting worse with tablets, eBook readers, PDA's, and gaming consoles adding to the feeding frenzy, the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.  Now more than ever, caveat emptor applies, and SLA's enforced with ESA are imperative.