Misunderstandings about Tech Neutrality
Unfortunately while Technology Neutrality is a desirable goal that can facilitate competition and innovation in some circumstances, its practical implications and limitations are easily misunderstood or overlooked. It is also by no means the only policy goal and characteristic of networks that must be kept in mind.
Compromises have to be found between the demands of technology neutrality in its pure form with the sometimes conflicting and equally legitimate demands of other principles that also deserve a hearing in policy and regulatory debates, such as the value of interoperability between networks and network services, and the benefits of socio-economic efficiency.
Interoperability and efficiency depend on standards that almost inevitably will tend to favor one or some technologies over others, and hence limit the practical scope of technology neutrality.
Indeed the development and growth of markets in which multiple diverse players have to cooperate to deliver a final service or product to the consumer depends upon one or a very limited number of standards – either de facto or de jure – winning acceptance in the marketplace.
Purely commercial or market forces may be sufficient and eminently suited in some instances to determine which standard or standards and technologies are winners without any government or regulatory action, since the selection of technology winners is not a core competence of government bodies or bureaucrats or politicians.
Nevertheless regulators and policy makers who influence the playing fields in which standards battles are fought have to consider whether and if so how their interventions may affect the speed and relative chances of success of competing standards or technologies, and whether the effects of these interventions are likely to be consistent, or conflict with the more fundamental or primary goals they are striving to achieve.
Technology Neutrality should be looked at as a means to help achieve more fundamental goals. Decisions about its implementation should take account of its real-world implications for these goals.
The principle of Technology Neutrality has recently come to the fore in two contrasting arenas, namely: (i) Universal Service/Universal Access and (ii) Spectrum Allocation. In the former case, Technology Neutrality has traditionally not been applied (although this situation is beginning to change), which has resulted in a very poor use and waste of resources.
In contrast in the latter case it has been applied, but inappropriately implemented in reaching decisions, most notably by the European Commission (EC) with respect to wireless networks. The EC has produced a “cure” which is arguably worse than the “disease” or deficiency it is supposedly correcting, in this case concern about the potentially stifling effect of rigid standardization that may exclude the deployment of innovative wireless technologies.
Technology neutrality (or agnosticism) while worth pursuing is a bit more complicated than appears at first sight. It is not an absolute value, and its practical implementation must be considered in the context of trade-offs with other equally and arguably in some cases more important principles and goals of policy makers and regulators.
Loading ...