We spend a lot of time here defending the simple proposition that flexible free-market pricing is a good thing. You would think that in 2012 we wouldn’t need to do so, but there’s a growing movement afoot today by some academics, regulatory activists, and public policymakers to have government start asserting more authority over broadband pricing. In particular, they want Congress, the FCC, or state officials to investigate and possibly even regulate efforts by wireline and wireless broadband carriers to use usage-based pricing and data caps as a method of calibrating supply and demand. This was the focus of my last weekly Forbes column, “The Specter Of Broadband Price Controls.” In the piece I note that:

Data caps and usage-based pricing are forms of what economists refer to as price discrimination. Although viewed with suspicion by some policymakers and regulatory-minded academics and activists, price discrimination is widely recognized to improve consumer welfare. Price-differentiated and prioritized services are part of almost every industrial sector in our capitalist economy. Notable examples include airline and hotel reservations, prioritized shipping services, amusement park passes, and fuel and energy pricing. Economists agree that price discrimination represents a sensible way to calibrate supply and demand while ensuring the fixed costs of doing business get covered. Consumers benefit from such pricing experimentation by gaining more options while firms gain more certainty about investment and service decisions.

This is confirmed by an excellent new Mercatus Center working paper on “The Impact of Data Caps and Other Forms of Usage-Based Pricing for Broadband Access,” by Daniel A. Lyons, an assistant professor of law at Boston College Law School. Lyons explains why a return to price controls for communications would be monumentally misguided. Lyons notes that “data caps and other forms of metered consumption are not inherently anti-consumer or anticompetitive. Rather, they reflect different pricing strategies through which a broadband company may recover its costs from its customer base and fund future infrastructure investment.” He notes that “by aligning costs more closely with use, usage-based pricing may effectively shift more network costs onto those consumers who use the network the most.”

What I find most interesting about the debate over broadband pricing flexibility is the way some so-called “consumer advocates” cannot seemingly wrap their heads around the fact that price discrimination can actually benefit most consumers by creating more and better pricing options and service alternatives. As I noted in my Forbes essay, “if policymakers lock-in flat rate pricing or regulate pricing such that it is not allowed to fluctuate with demand or investment needs, then it is likely that light users (including many lower income users) will end up paying more than they need to for their overall share of network costs. If that is also disallowed through rate regulation, then network investment will suffer and further innovation will be discouraged. Something has to give because, again, there really is no free lunch.”

It remains to be seen whether true free market pricing will be allowed to continue in this context, but make no doubt about it, this is the most important aspect of the ongoing debate about modern information economics. If America returns to price and rate controls for communications, innovation and investment will suffer greatly.

Oh, and here’s a video featuring Eli Dourado, who can explain this much more eloquently than me! …

Additional Reading

• More on Net Neutrality, the Importance of Business Model Experimentation & Pricing Flexibility (May 9, 2012)
• Real Talk on Net Neutrality (May 9, 2012)
• Netflix Falls Prey to Marginal Cost Fallacy & Pleads for a Broadband Free Ride (July 8, 2011)
• Smartphones & Usage-Based Pricing: Are Price Controls Coming? (July 12, 2011)
• Why Congestion Pricing for the iPhone & Broadband Makes Sense (October 7, 2009)
• The (Un)Free Press Calls for Internet Price Controls: “The Broadband Internet Fairness Act” (June 17, 2009)
• Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls (June 18, 2009)
• Bandwidth Cap Hysteria & the Alternative (October 4, 2008)
• Once Again, Why Not Meter Broadband Pipes?  (September 7, 2007)
• Why Not Meter? (March 12, 2007)
• The Real Net Neutrality Debate: Pricing Flexibility Versus Pricing Regulation (October 27, 2005)

Time Warner Cable (TWC) has announced it will once again attempt an experiment with usage-based pricing (UBP) for its broadband services. (News coverage here, here, and here.) The company gave UBP a shot a few years ago and some consumers, regulatory advocates, and lawmakers howled in protest. The radical activist group Free Press called for immediate policy action and former Rep. Eric Massa’s (D-NY) was happy to oblige with his proposed “Broadband Internet Fairness Act,” which would have let the FCC decide whether such pricing plans were permissible.

For their latest UBP experiment, TWC goes out of its way to avoid controversy, primarily by making it clear the plan is entirely optional. Here’s what their consumers are offered as part of what is being labelled it’s “Value Edition” plan:

• Up to 5GB/month of data transmission for a $5/month discount from one’s current monthly bill. All Standard, Basic and Lite broadband customers will be eligible. Turbo, Extreme and Wideband customers will continue as always, with access to unlimited broadband and no optional tiered plan or discounts.
• The ability to opt-in and opt-out of a tiered package at any time.
• A “meter” that tracks usage on a daily, monthly, weekly or even hourly basis, enabling customers to accurately gauge usage. Below is an example of the hourly meter:
• A 60 day/2 billing-cycle grace period to allow customers to adjust usage patterns. During this time we will notify customers of overages but won’t charge for them.
• Overages will cost $1 per GB, not to exceed a maximum of $25/month.

It’s hard to see how anyone could be against this and I was pleased to see that Harold Feld of Public Knowledge didn’t automatically dismiss it and, in fact, had some rather favorable things to say about it. Nonetheless, as UBP schemes begin to multiply — and they will — we can expect some of the same old concerns and criticisms to surface. Many folks hate the sound of differential pricing / price discrimination, believing it to be annoying at best or unfair at worst. But price discrimination and UBP techniques are all around us in the real world.

The important thing to keep in mind here is that pricing experimentation is good, not only because it can save consumers money and more fairly allocate costs, but because it helps pay for future investments and innovations in high fixed cost / low marginal cost industries like broadband. I won’t go into all the details about why I’m particularly fond of a “Ramsey pricing” (a two-part charge that would involve a flat fee for service up to a certain level and then a per-unit or metered fee over a certain level of use) approach because I’ve said it all here before. See:

• Smartphones & Usage-Based Pricing: Are Price Controls Coming (July 12, 2011)
• Netflix Falls Prey to Marginal Cost Fallacy & Pleads for a Broadband Free Ride (July 8, 2011)
• Why Congestion Pricing for the iPhone & Broadband Makes Sense (October 7, 2009)
• The (Un)Free Press Calls for Internet Price Controls: “The Broadband Internet Fairness Act” (June 17, 2009)
• Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls (June 18, 2009)
• Bandwidth Cap Hysteria & the Alternative  (October 4, 2008)
• Once Again, Why Not Meter Broadband Pipes?  (September 7, 2007)
• Why Not Meter? (March 12, 2007)
• The Real Net Neutrality Debate: Pricing Flexibility Versus Pricing Regulation (October 27, 2005)

While I think some variant of UBP makes a great deal of sense for broadband (whether its wired or wireless), I believe it is essential that public policy remains agnostic regarding which pricing techniques are optimal and instead lets ongoing marketplace experimentation figure that out for us. It may be that different companies devise different pricing schemes in an attempt to differentiate themselves from competitors or potential new entrants. Let the experiments continue! I look forward to watching the Time Warner Cable experiment and others like it.

Two data points in the news over the past 24 hours to consider:

• A new report on “Smartphone Adoption & Usage” by the Pew Internet Project finds that “one third of American adults – 35% – own smartphones” and that of that group “some 87% of smartphone owners access the Internet or email on their handheld” and “25% of smartphone owners say that they mostly go online using their phone, rather than with a computer.”
• According to the Wall Street Journal, the “Average iPhone Owner Will Download 83 Apps This Year.” That’s up from an average of 51 apps downloaded in 2010. (At first I was astonished when I read that, but then realized that I’ve probably downloaded an equal number of apps myself, albeit on an Android-based device.)

As I explain in my latest Forbes column, facts like these help us understand “How iPhones And Androids Ushered In A Smartphone Pricing Revolution.” That is, major wireless carriers are in the process of migrating from flat-rate, “all-you-can-eat” wireless data plans to usage-based plans. The reason is simple economics: data demand is exploding faster than data supply can keep up.

“It’s been four years since the introduction of the iPhone and rival devices that run Google’s Android software,” notes Cecilia Kang of The Washington Post. “In that time, the devices have turned much of America into an always-on, Internet-on-the-go society.” Indeed, but it’s not just the iPhone and Android smartphones. It’s all those tablets that have just come online over the past year, too. We are witnessing a tectonic shift in how humans consume media and information, and we are witnessing this revolution unfold over a very short time frame.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, “unlimited” wireless data plans are probably on the way out since, as I observe in my Forbes piece:

That model created unsustainable network traffic burdens and it’s surprising unlimited plans have lasted this long. With smartphone users increasingly using their mobile devices to access the Internet and consume more cloud-based services and mobile video than ever, the “all you can eat” data buffet eventually had to end.

But critics are far too quick to suggest this is some of nefarious, anti-consumer conspiracy. In reality, I argue:

Tiered and metered pricing schemes are a sensible way to price demand for bandwidth-intensive users and applications and, in the process, alleviate network congestion, encourage new investment, and ensure that average costs for consumers are more reasonable over time.

Using usage data provided by Nielsen, I document the dramatic traffic growth that carriers are struggling to deal with but also show how most average consumers will do better under the new tiered plans. That’s because, even with a significant uptick in wireless data demand, the vast majority of users will not exceed the lowest tier of service (2 GB) that carriers are pricing at $20-$30. That’s less than most of them pay today. Thus:

It’s only the most rapacious mobile data consumers who’ll pay the higher tier prices. Doesn’t it make more sense that the most intensive network users pay more instead of raising average costs for all consumers? Why should minimal data users subsidize the big eaters?

Instead of repeating it all here, I’d just encourage you to bounce over to Forbes to read my entire essay.

The interesting policy question raised by all this is whether critics and policymakers will give network operators the freedom to innovate and employ creative business models so market experimentation can determine which pricing schemes will best calibrate supply and demand while also ensuring optimal network investment. You may recall that usage-based pricing has already become a flashpoint in the Net neutrality wars, and just last Friday I wrote about Netflix’s shameless attempt to get the feds to regulate usage-based pricing on the wireline front.

So, stay tuned. This fight could really heat up. Perhaps it’s time to dust off the old books and papers about how to fight off government price controls!

Related Reading:

• Netflix Falls Prey to Marginal Cost Fallacy & Pleads for a Broadband Free Ride (July 8, 2011)
• Why Congestion Pricing for the iPhone & Broadband Makes Sense (October 7, 2009)
• The (Un)Free Press Calls for Internet Price Controls: “The Broadband Internet Fairness Act” (June 17, 2009)
• Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls (June 18, 2009)
• Once Again, Why Not Meter Broadband Pipes?  (September 7, 2007)
• Why Not Meter? (March 12, 2007)
• The Real Net Neutrality Debate: Pricing Flexibility Versus Pricing Regulation (October 27, 2005)

Stacey Higginbotham at GigaOm conducted a great interview with Verizon CTO Dick Lynch, in which he endorsed broadband metering:

We believe that you have to be allowed to have a level of service that is not on a public Internet. What you’re suggesting is different kind of IP service that’s not delivered over the public Internet and that needs to be part of the option set in the argument.

http://blip.tv/play/AYGjswkC

Such metering, if allowed by Washington, might lessen the need for some of the network management practices that so incense net neutrality fanatics.  So I’d really like to see Verizon and other ISPs explore using a “Ramsey two-part tariff,” as Adam has suggested again and again:

A two-part tariff (or price) would involve a flat fee for service up to a certain level and then a per-unit / metered fee over a certain level. I don’t know where the demarcation should be in terms of where the flat rate ends and the metering begins; that’s for market experimentation to sort out. But the clear advantage of this solution is that it preserves flat-rate, all-you-can-eat pricing for casual to moderate bandwidth users and only resorts to less popular metering pricing strategies when the usage is “excessive,” however that is defined.

ISPs would have an incentive to set the demarcation to a point where, roughly, the vast majority of users would never have to worry about their usage, but the small percentage of bandwidth hogs would have a real disincentive to cut back on bandwidth use—thus avoiding the “Tragedy of the Commons,” which is really the “Tragedy of the Unmetered Commons,” as I noted a year ago.

Holman Jenkins has a stinging editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal entitled, “Neutering the ‘Net,” which borrows a term that my friend Randy May coined long ago to describe what net neutrality regulation will ultimately accomplish. What I like best about the Jenkins essay was the way he exposed Free Press for their hypocrisy over metering as a possible alternative approach to network management, something I documented in this piece and this piece about their new-found love of Internet price controls.  Here’s how Jenkins puts it in his essay today:

The mask really slipped earlier this year when Time Warner Cable began experimenting with usage-based pricing to protect the average broadband customers from the 20% of users who create 80% of the traffic. A lobby called Free Press, the most extreme of the pro-net neutrality interests, went ballistic, calling metered pricing a “price-gouging scheme” and backing a bill in Congress to ban it. Never mind that Free Press had previously argued just the opposite, saying usage-based pricing was a fairer way to deal with congestion than, say, by selectively slowing down file-sharing sites that gobble up disproportionate broadband capacity. Never mind, too, the irony that the net-neut campaign against the selective slowing of non-urgent traffic has left only differential pricing as a way to bring a modicum of efficiency to network usage.

Indeed.  Of course, we should expect nothing less from the neo-Marxist media reformistas as the UnFree Press.

Make sure to read George Ou’s two recent articles over at the Digital Society blog setting the record straight about broadband usage caps: “Putting American Bandwidth Caps into Context” and “We Need to be Reasonable about Broadband Usage Caps.”   George is one sharp cookie. I particularly like the way he takes apart Free Press for their hypocrisy on this issue, something I have commented on here before after George brought it to my attention. See:

• Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls; and
• The (Un)Free Press Calls for Internet Price Controls: “The Broadband Internet Fairness Act”

… and here’s some older material on the issue…

• Why Not Meter?
• Once Again, Why Not Meter Broadband Pipes?
• Bandwidth Cap Hysteria & the Alternative
• Bandwidth Cap Worries (by Tim Lee)
• Net Neutrality Rules = Price Controls (by Ryan Radia)
• The Real Net Neutrality Debate: Pricing Flexibility Versus Pricing Regulation

In response to my essay last night about this new Free Press campaign to layer price controls on the Internet by banning metered prices via Rep. Massa’s new bill (the “Broadband Internet Fairness Act“), George Ou and Richard Bennett reminded me of some of the contradictory statements that the (Un)Free Press crew have made on this issue.  Indeed, if you look back at what Free Press and their chairman have said about the matter over just the past 18 months, they seem to be whistling two very different tunes.

For example, George Ou reminded me of what Free Press had to say in its November 2007 filing in the FCC’s Comcast-Bit Torrent proceeding:

“More importantly, if Comcast is concerned that the collective set of users running P2P applications are affecting quality of service for other users on a cable loop… they could also charge by usage.” (p. 29) […] “Indeed, in many nations, network providers do meter, and bill their customers on the basis of amount used. So the transaction costs of doing so must not be prohibitively high. Indeed, a network provider can apparently meter cheaply because, in most networks, users’ traffic to and from the Internet passes through a single gateway, the network access server.” (p. 31)

And Richard Bennett reminded me of what Tim Wu, chairman of the Free Press, had to say about metering to the Washington Post just one year ago:

“I don’t quite see [metering] as an outrage, and in fact is probably the fairest system going — though of course the psychology of knowing that you’re paying for bandwidth may change behavior.”

So, what gives?  Will the real Free Press please stand up? Does the Free Press believe in pricing freedom or price controls for the Internet?

Over at TechDirt, Tom Lee has a sharp critique of Muayyad Al-Chalabi’s much-circulated paper (via GigaOm) opposing bandwidth caps. Make sure to read Tom’s entire essay, but here’s the key take-away:

this whitepaper merely amounts to a complaint that a free lunch is ending. Bandwidth is clearly an increasingly limited resource. And in capitalist societies, money is how we allocate limited resources. The alternate solutions that Al-Chalabi proposes to the carriers on pages 6 and 8 — like P2P mirrors, improved service and “leveraging… existing relationships with content providers” — either assume that network improvements are free, would gut network neutrality, or are simply nonsense.

Indeed. But Tom generally agrees that “Comcast’s bandwidth cap is a drag” and that “Instead of disconnection, there should be reasonable fees imposed for overages. They should come up with a schedule defining how the cap will increase in the future. And the paper’s suggestion of loosened limits during off-peak times is a good one.”

Well, those are three different things but I generally agree with all of them. Let me just repeat, however, my strong endorsement of the first option — metering at the margin — and again highlight the optimal way to do it from an economic perspective. As I noted in one of my many previous articles about metering for bandwidth hogs:

my preferred model [is] what economists call a “Ramsey two-part tariff.” A two-part tariff (or price) would involve a flat fee for service up to a certain level and then a per-unit / metered fee over a certain level. I don’t know where the demarcation should be in terms of where the flat rate ends and the metering begins; that’s for market experimentation to sort out. But the clear advantage of this solution is that it preserves flat-rate, all-you-can-eat pricing for casual to moderate bandwidth users and only resorts to less popular metering pricing strategies when the usage is “excessive,” however that is defined.

My former PFF colleague Scott Wallsten penned an outstanding paper on the issue last year entitled, “Managing the Network? Rethink Prices, not Net Neutrality,” in which he also endorsed the idea:

Broadband use could similarly be metered. One could imagine simple metered pricing, in which users pay by the bit. Alternatively, providers could develop hybrid plans in which metered pricing begins only after some very high level of usage. In that case, heavy users would pay for the costs they impose on the network rather than being subject to what might otherwise appear to be arbitrary delays in their Internet traffic or threatening letters in their mailboxes. ISPs know how much bandwidth their users use, even if they do not know what content is flowing over the pipes. Implementing new pricing schemes presumably would not be a technical challenge.

I still think this approach deserves a fair hearing, but given the hysteria we have seen over bandwidth cap proposals I suppose that people will just keep looking for a free lunch instead.

Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Net, has a very thoughtful post up on the Google Public Policy Blog today asking “What’s a Reasonable Approach for Managing Broadband Networks?” He runs through a variety of theoretical approaches to network load management. There’s much there to ponder, but I just wanted to comment briefly on the very last thing he says in the piece:

Over the past few months, I have been talking with engineers at Comcast about some of these network management issues. I’ve been pleased so far with the tone and substance of these conversations, which have helped me to better understand the underlying motivation and rationale for the network management decisions facing Comcast, and the unique characteristics of cable broadband architecture. And as we said a few weeks ago, their commitment to a protocol-agnostic approach to network management is a step in the right direction.

I found this of great interest because for the last few months I have been wondering: (a) why isn’t there more of that sort of inter- and intra-industry dialogue going on, and (b) what could be done to encourage more of it? With the exception of those folks at the extreme fringe of the Net neutrality movement, most rational people involved in this debate accept the fact that there will be legitimate network management issues that industry must deal with from time to time. So, how can we get people in industry — from all quarters of it — to sit down at a negotiating table and hammer things out voluntarily before calling in the regulators to impose ham-handed, inflexible solutions? What we are talking about here is the need for a technical dispute resolution process that doesn’t involve the FCC. If the anti-Net neutrality regulation crowd (and that includes me!) wants to be taken seriously when they talk about “self-regulatory” solutions, this sort of dispute resolution process becomes essential. And the pro-Net neutrality regulation crowd needs to understand that, even if they ultimately desire some role for the FCC here, regulatory resolutions to technical disputes are notoriously slow and ultimately will always be one step behind the technical dispute du jour.

Therefore, wouldn’t it be nice if, as Cerf suggests above, those parties with a technical dispute about network management had a way of talking things through immediately and before they went to the regulatory equivalent of mutually assured destruction?

All the relevant players in the broadband / Internet sector need to put their heads together and think about how to create a forum or process that can serve as such a technical dispute resolution mechanism. On a smaller scale, Comcast and Bit Torrent did this in a voluntary, bilateral fashion when they sat down to hammer out a collaborative agreement in March. As their press announcement noted:

Comcast Corporation and BitTorrent, Inc. announced today that they will undertake a collaborative effort with one another and with the broader Internet and ISP community to more effectively address issues associated with rich media content and network capacity management. While BitTorrent and Comcast are talking directly, they are also in discussions with other parties to help facilitate a broader dialogue and cooperation across industries.

But we know that countless more technical disputes will arise in the future at every layer of the Internet — not just with Comcast and BitTorrent. Thus, if we are really going to achieve “a broader dialogue and cooperation across industries” then what we really need is the equivalent of a multilateral trade negotiating process or forum to achieve sensible resolutions to complex technical difficulties surround Internet network management.

I am not prepared to say whether a new, formal organization is needed to accomplish this or if existing institutions and individuals (academic, trade associations, etc) might be able to work together to make this happen. For example, and I am just thinking out loud here so don’t quote me on this, what if we had the Internet Society working in conjunction with several major industry trade associations and some respected academic institutions to form some sort of collaborative, dialogue-oriented dispute resolution process? Sort of GATT or WTO for technical Internet dispute resolution.

Certainly that would be preferable to a politicized FCC taking over the show and making all these technical decisions, no? I’d be interested in hearing some input from others.

Web Pro News’ Jason Lee Miller seems to think he’s hoisted my colleague Bret Swanson, and The Progress & Freedom Foundation in general, on our own collective  petard.  Bret had responded to Tim Wu’s NYT op-ed by questioning Wu’s argument for developing “alternative supplies of bandwidth” to free us from the tyranny of the OPEC-like broadband cartel:

Unlike natural resources such as oil, which, while abundant, are at some point finite, bandwidth is potentially infinite. The miraculous microcosmic spectrum reuse capabilities of optical fiber and even wireless radiation improve at a rate far faster than any of our macrocosmic machines and minerals. It is far more efficient to move electrons than atoms, and yet more efficient to move photons. Left unfettered, these technologies will continue delivering bandwidth abundance.

Miller suggests that this response to Wu destroys arguments Bret and others at PFF have made against net neutrality regulation–a crusade led by Wu (who taught me Internet law, as it happens):

So what [Swanson is] saying is bandwidth scarcity is a notion invented by internet service providers and wireless providers to jack up prices and provide excuses for interfering with competing services on their networks. Nice. In a weird way, Swanson focuses so hard on disproving Wu’s analogy one way, he misses how the analogy is proved in another: a few organizations (government or not) controlling an important resource and forcing artificial scarcity in order to control the market for that resource is called a cartel.

Miller’s “Gotcha!” rests on the seemingly undeniable premise that broadband can’t be both abundant (as Bret argues) and scarce (such that ISPs must management traffic on their networks, however non-neutral that may be).   But in fact, this seeming contradiction is inherent in the very nature of the Internet–and the way Internet access is currently priced.

On the one hand, Bret is right that broadband is “abundant” in a way that resources in the real world cannot be:  Continued investments in broadband networks by network operators have dramatically increased the amount of bandwidth available–causing prices to plummet for both wireline and wireless broadband.  Consumers today enjoy greater download speeds while paying constantly decreasing prices per bit.  So much for Wu’s OPEC analogy.

But contrary to those defenders of net neutrality regulation who think we can somehow grow our way out of the problem of network congestion merely by increasing the amount of bandwidth available, the demand for bandwidth is also infinitely elastic.  Making more bandwidth available simply encourages the development of new services and content whose use and consumption requires more bandwidth.  The significant advances in bandwidth available to U.S. broadband consumers in recent years have made it possible for us all to share huge amounts of data through peer-to-peer file-sharing services, view essentially infinite amounts of video back up hundreds of gigabytes on online storage services like Amazon’s reasonably-priced S3, and even begin moving our most basic computing tools like email and word processing into the “cloud.”  One has only to contemplate the kind of bandwidth that will be required when YouTube goes hi-def (something the less-popular Vimeo has already done) to realize that, from the network operator’s perspective, trying to solve network congestion problems simply by increasing the amount of bandwidth available is like a pie-eating contest where the prize is… more pie.

Thus, broadband can be increasingly “abundant” in the sense that there is always more of it available than ever before and, in the narrow and particular sense of Internet network congestion, “scarce” ( i.e., unlimited) at the same time.  This apparent contradiction stems from three facts:

1. Internet content and services are increasingly free to the user, either supported by advertising revenues or by some “up-sell” of additional features beyond the basic, free version.  This means that consumers have no economic reason not to gobble up the “new, new thing”–which usually consumes more bandwidth than whatever content or service it replaces.
2. Similarly, and more importantly, data use is priced on an all-you-can-eat basis.  Consumers pay a flat monthly fee for essentially “unlimited” broadband.
3. The secret to the Internet’s efficiency lies in its architecture as a packet-switching network of networks:  Unlike the circuit-switched traditional telephone network, the Internet works precisely because only a small fraction of its users are sending or requesting bits at any particular moment.  If everyone tried to watch a hi-def video at once (or watch any video, for that matter), the Internet would simply crash to a screeching halt.  Thus, even “abundant” bandwidth is necessarily scarce in terms of how many people can try to use it at any particular moment for a particular application.  Yes, it’s conceivable that in some future world with orders of magnitude more bandwidth than exists today, every person could indeed watch a classic YouTube video from 2008, but if they all tried to host holographic conference calls…  the same basic limitation would apply.

Thus it is that a tiny number of network users can consumer the vast majority of its bandwidth.  Since fact #1 is essentially a law of the Internet universe, and since no amount of additional bandwidth will overcome the constraints inherent in fact #3, ISPs must find some way of dealing with the problem of network congestion if they are to satisfy the vast majority of their customers whose network use is degraded by those who use more bandwidth than they do.  Proponents of network neutrality regulation like Wu would limit the ability of ISPs to deal with this problem through traffic management by putting government bureaucrats in charge of deciding which forms of management are benign and which are not.  (On this very day, the FCC is about to hold Comcast in violation of a non-binding 2005 policy statement for throttling, but not blocking, certain bandwidth-hogging users of the peer-to-peer file-sharing system BitTorrent.)

While some amount of traffic management will always be necessary, the need for it can certainly be reduced by changing fact #2:  moving to a different pricing structure for Internet access.  As my PFF colleague Adam Thierer has explained,

a “Ramsey two-part tariff” … would involve a flat fee for service up to a certain level and then a per-unit / metered fee over a certain level. I don’t know where the demarcation should be in terms of where the flat rate ends and the metering begins; that’s for market experimentation to sort out. But the clear advantage of this solution is that it preserves flat-rate, all-you-can-eat pricing for casual to moderate bandwidth users and only resorts to less popular metering pricing strategies when the usage is “excessive,” however that is defined.

Experiments in this area are indeed underway (and see further discussion here).  Their ultimate success will likely depend on setting the all-you-can-eat threshold high enough that ordinary users (say, 90-95% of all users) are not affected.

In the meantime, those of us who defend the accelerating abundance of broadband as the result of ongoing investments by network operators while opposing net neutrality regulation as an impediment to such investments clearly have our work cut out for us in explaining the apparent contradiction of “scarcity”-in-abundance that is unique to Internet bandwidth.

Om Malik has a hot-headed screed on his blog today about the supposed evils of capitalism, full of tales of corporate conspiracies and the such. But I love the way most of his reader have taken him to task for calling on FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to become a true “21st century Robin Hood who is looking out for the U.S. Internet consumer” by “putting an end to this metered broadband nonsense right now.”

Just jump past Om’s irrational rant and go right the really excellent discussion taking place among his readers in the comments. It’s the best discussion I have seen on the issue in a long time.