Is all data the same online?

The topic of net neutrality is currently on the political agenda because cable operators would be technically capable of transporting data in different qualities. For example, they could transmit TV services from Teleboy and TV services from Swisscom in different qualities. Until recently, this was technically very complex, says Andreas von Gunten, member of the Swiss Digital Society. Until now, the Internet has functioned according to the "best effort" principle: as long as there is free transmission capacity on the network, all data is treated equally.

In Switzerland, it is Swisscom, Sunrise, Orange and Cablecom who have the last mile to every Internet connection. This means that customers can sign an Internet contract with an alternative provider, but the four major Internet providers have what is known as end-customer access. They could theoretically restrict the content available on the Internet. In fact, they have no interest in doing so, as Swisscom spokesperson Schulze emphasizes. However, the telecommunications providers insist on certain freedoms in the design of their products.

Since 2013, a working group of the Federal Office of Communications has been discussing whether a law is necessary to safeguard net neutrality. The working group has not yet come to any concrete conclusions. The recently published report outlines the demands of the various interest groups. It also identifies various motives for the unequal treatment of data, which can also have positive effects for end customers. For example, network management is sometimes useful to ensure the quality of an internet service or to block illegal content. "This is necessary and provided for by law," emphasizes Schulze. However, given the current legal situation, Internet providers could also demand payment for transporting content and services to customers. This is where the difficulties begin for critical circles: "It would be like posting a letter and the recipient would also have to pay postage," illustrates von Gunten. Accordingly, network operators could transport their own services and those of commercial partners with particularly good quality or throttle those of competitors.

These are the fears. But what violations of net neutrality are already taking place today? There are only a handful of concrete examples that proponents of net neutrality can currently cite. Their central accusation concerns Orange's preferential treatment of the Zattoo and Spotify services and Swisscom's preferential treatment of Swisscom TV air. For example, if you book a subscription with Orange with a limited data volume, the data transfer when consuming Zattoo is not deducted from this data volume - however, if you use an independent provider such as Teleboy, you use up the purchased data volume.

Orange provides the lines for its own services free of charge, so to speak, while customers pay for the services of other providers. For von Gunten, this clearly puts the small media companies at a disadvantage: "This puts one provider in a better position than the other. If I as a consumer want to use Teleboy, this is also clearly against my interests." Swisscom spokesperson Schulze appeases: Subscriptions with a limited data volume are not a future business. There are no longer any volume restrictions in the fixed network sector anyway. At the end of June, 58 percent of mobile customers already had an Infinity offer - and the trend is rising. Of the remaining 42%, many did not own a smartphone anyway. For von Gunten, however, the problem is of a more fundamental nature. It starts with the fact that many network operators offer their own content and services in addition to Internet access. From the cable operators' point of view, this is obvious. "The Internet connection alone does not generate as many margins. That's why network operators are expanding their media offering." However, it is incompatible with their core task. "The profit of a single state-affiliated company should not be valued higher than the overall social aspect. I would be in favor of cable being part of the public service. But then there needs to be a clear separation between access and content."

For the digital society activist, the genius of the Internet is the "innovation without permission" principle. "Anyone can put an idea online and see if it works on the market." There is a danger that in future this will only be the case for content providers who also operate their own network - and that no more independent innovative services will emerge over time. The issue of competition is also at the heart of the discussion. According to the Bakom report, many companies are dependent on the openness of the Internet at the start of their activities. In more and more sectors, a growing proportion of value creation and communication is taking place via the Internet. This is particularly true for start-ups in the media sector. They are dependent on low market entry costs. Von Gunten is also convinced that these subscriptions are ultimately not booked by customers because they are tailored to their needs. " Customers choose a low-cost combined offer and are initially happy that Swisscom TV is included free of charge. If they want to switch to other services later, there is a certain hurdle. Switching is not as easy as the network operators like to claim. You are often tied to a contract for over two years and there is a lot involved in such a package. Customers usually don't care that much about a single service, even though they would prefer it." A global service like YouTube is so relevant that customers would definitely consider switching networks, replies Schulze. Von Gunten agrees. Competition will probably lead to all major providers offering the central programs. "You will hardly have to do without Netflix or YouTube. But a small provider can no longer enter the market. Competition cannot solve this problem." The digital society is therefore calling for net neutrality to be enshrined in law - for example as part of the revised Telecommunications Act or in a separate law. It should ensure that anyone offering internet access transmits all data without discrimination. "We don't deny that providers have to invest more and more. But these costs should be borne by the end customer - for the bandwidth they want." In contrast, Swisscom sees no reason to block services - especially not from small providers that hardly burden the networks. The cable operators therefore consider a legal regulation to be superfluous.

Simone Isliker

The grid operator

Interview with Olaf Schulze, media spokesman for Swisscom

"Regulatory intervention should only be made where it is necessary and sensible."

 
WW: What is your attitude towards a legal regulation of net neutrality?
Olaf Schulze: Swisscom is in favor of an open Internet. However, we do not understand the need for legal regulation. Industry observers are consistently of the opinion that there has been no violation of net neutrality in Switzerland and that the likelihood of one occurring is low. Regulatory intervention should only take place where it is necessary and sensible.
 
So there is no unequal treatment of Internet data?
There is no recognized definition of the term net neutrality. Net neutrality in the strictest sense, meaning that all data on the internet is treated equally, has never existed and will never exist - for the simple reason that internet capacity is limited. In the event of a traffic jam, equal treatment of data packets for a YouTube film with data packets for telemedicine or the control of electricity grids could not be justified. A narrow interpretation of net neutrality would lead to restrictions that are disadvantageous from the customer's point of view. In Switzerland, however, no services are blocked or slowed down as a matter of principle.
 
However, there are fears that the transmission quality of TV services will be throttled by Swisscom and that they will then have to pay for good transmission quality.
I can rule out this scenario. You have to look at the competitive situation in Switzerland. The customer has the choice between various providers. No provider can afford to block or throttle a service.

The Internet TV provider

Interview with Karim Zekri, co-founder of Teleboy

"A two-tier internet is emerging."
 

 
WW: What is your attitude towards a legal regulation of net neutrality?
Karim Zekri: In a Bakom survey a year ago, I was still of the opinion that the competition should regulate this itself. I'm not a fan of too many laws. In the course of the debate and the discussions I took part in, I revised my opinion somewhat. Today, I believe that net neutrality needs to be enshrined in law. This is because it has become obvious - due to the attitude of Swiss internet providers, but also due to the latest developments in the USA - that they will abuse their power.
 
What are your fears if such a regulation does not materialize?
A two-tier internet. Internet providers will demand money from individual operators to ensure that their content and services reach the end customer. Or they will discriminate against services that compete with their own services. Just as Skype was once blocked on the Swiss mobile network or non-transparent peering policies for network access led to video streams being jerky even though the consumer's bandwidth was sufficient.
 
Do you already feel disadvantaged as an independent TV provider?
We see a disadvantage in the fact that certain TV services (such as Zattoo or Swisscom TV air) are included in some cell phone subscriptions and do not count towards the data volume of the subscription. I am convinced that the majority of customers will not opt for the subscription for this reason - but they are more likely to use the service than Teleboy. Orange claims that the customer is paying for this offer. But the subscription price also includes other additional services. This distorts the market.
 
The service providers have also invested billions in network expansion and thus taken on an investment risk.
The service providers are not in the red. They just can't make as much profit as they would like and have to invest the margins in network expansion. But that is also their job. Of course, they would prefer to leave network expansion to one side and only make the existing infrastructure available to those who pay. However, this would lead to a standstill in innovation and a clear disadvantage for consumers.