Vodafone Challenges Open Internet Net Neutrality Protections Again

The public policy team from broadband and mobile operator Vodafone (UK) has, once again, started a debate over the future of Net Neutrality rules (i.e. protecting the open internet from abuse by network operators) and warned that “telecoms networks are not infinite … [and] … overconsumption of this valuable and finite resource is already putting them at risk of degradation and depletion“.

In case anybody has forgotten, the UK and EU have already established guidelines, which tend to be softly enforced by national regulators like Ofcom. The rules, if we can call them that, essentially aim to ensure that mobile and broadband providers do not impose excessive restrictions against legal internet traffic and must treat almost all of it equally (e.g. they shouldn’t favour specific services, such as by blocking or slowing access).

However, there are some exceptions to this, such as for when providers need to impose general traffic management measures, court ordered blocks or for security (e.g. anti-virus/spam filtering). In addition, Ofcom softened these guidelines a bit in 2023 (here), such as by allowing providers to offer premium quality retail packages (e.g. those with tweaks to deliver lower latency) and support for specialised services so providers can deliver specific content and applications that need to be optimised (e.g. a limited allowance for network slicing on 5G mobile).

The regulator also clarified some previous conflicts around the issue of zero rating (i.e. free mobile data), such as for cases where mobile operators excluded some websites from data charges when they gave a social benefit (e.g. those offering public health info. during the COVID-19 pandemic).

Ding Ding. Net Neutrality Round.. (we lost track)

Nevertheless, some of the biggest providers have never fully given up on their vested interest for even more flexibility (in the UK it’s often BT and Vodafone leading this charge), which every few years tends to result in a rehashing of the same core arguments; this has been going on for the best part of two decades now.

The moans frequently target internet content providers (technically covering everything from websites to Netflix etc.), usually by demanding that they pay internet access providers to help carry their content, albeit through more diplomatic language.

Existing rules prevent ISPs from favouring content sources based on who pays them the most money, which might in turn lead to a degraded experience for other users (e.g. slowing the quality of Netflix, iPlayer on certain tiers). This typically helps to ensure that excessive access controls over content don’t result in a walled garden style internet experience.

“Those that consume network resources, such as content providers, have few incentives to design their services in an efficient and responsible manner or to minimise network traffic waste. Their business models, supported by advertising revenues, are designed to constantly increase engagement. They can grow traffic regardless of the consequences for networks, or the waste caused by autoplay, infinite scroll and pre-fetching of content,” said Vodafone’s public policy team. This is of course misleading, since content providers also have network costs of their own and a vested interest in making their services as efficient as possible, in order to reduce costs etc.

At this point, network operators often point to the risk of a future “capacity crunch” (Vodafone uses that phrase again too), before highlighting the endless growth of data traffic over their networks – something that is part and parcel of how networks have always worked. Many of these points are once again being made by Vodafone’s public policy team.

Statement by Vodafone’s Public Policy Team

These challenges are compounded by Europe’s legacy policies and regulations that overly restrict telcos from technically or commercially managing their traffic. The Open Internet rules, for example, are highly prescriptive and only allow traffic management in exceptional circumstances.

Europe is in danger of a ‘capacity crunch’ on its networks unless we face up to these overlapping challenges. It’s an unpalatable topic to address, but we can’t just ignore it and hope for the best.

It is therefore time for Europe to take this challenge more seriously, and work to create meaningful incentives that directly encourage more efficient use of networks.

That’s why Vodafone is today calling for a new Framework for Responsible Use of Networks that would drive action in three areas:

➤ A new industry Code of Conduct that sets clear, consistent guidelines on optimising internet traffic. If content services are better designed to optimise bandwidth and minimise ‘waste’, this would reduce pressure on networks for everyone’s benefit.

➤ More flexible network management rules so that operators are allowed to dynamically manage traffic on their networks. This would include applying fair use policies and deploy technical traffic management tools that prevent congestion and deliver a high-quality experience.

➤ A legislative framework, including a dispute resolution mechanism, to underpin the negotiation of commercial terms between network operators and large content providers. This would create the right economic incentives to improve internet traffic inefficiencies. It could also ensure network operators are fairly compensated for costs incurred in providing traffic conveyance services, including peering, caching, and transit.

Whilst this proposed Framework is new, the broader idea is not. It’s been done before. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, content providers, telecoms operators and governments pulled together to ensure that society could continue to function. We just need to formalise this concept, and adapt it for the critical situation Europe currently finds itself in.

The focus above is of course on “Europe“, while Ofcom’s recent changes do address part of this in the UK, although it’s clear that Vodafone still want legislators to go much further. You can see the full details in their related report – ‘A Framework for Responsible Use of Networks‘.

The report includes some traffic graphs that network engineers may find interesting, not least due to how they portray the peaks of network usage (page 34) – something that is generally kind of normal. Most online services are designed to cope with peaks of usage that go many times above their average load. Modern Content Delivery Networks (CDN) also help to keep such things under control.

The reality here is that demand for data is always growing, and the trends we see today aren’t that different from what they were in the past. Fixed line network operators have always been able to adapt to this, and we see no reason why that won’t continue into the future.

Admittedly, there are more challenges for mobile networks on this front, which tend to be reflected more via the limitations of spectrum availability than backhaul capacity. Nevertheless, regulators are freeing up new spectrum bands to address this, and future technologies (e.g. 6G) will make such data more efficient to deliver. Future networks may, however, have to become denser and more complex, which will increase costs – at least in urban areas.

However, it’s worth remembering that demand for data and thus mobile/broadband services would not exist without internet content providers. Some network providers may complain that the increase in related data usage from these services and others raise their costs, but that’s the nature of the beast (cost of doing business) and should ideally continue to be reflected in the prices we all pay as end-users. Indeed, whatever happens, the end user always pays at some level.

In our view, the existing rules, while imperfect, have generally worked well to keep the balance fair and the internet open (as it was always intended to be). We should point out that many smaller and medium-sized ISPs support this position too, although there may come in a point in the future where the rules, for mobile operators in particular, do need further tweaking. But we aren’t there yet.