The FCC today put forward a draft of so-called "net neutrality" rules. It's largely a battle among giants. The Commission is worried that internet providers, like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast,can use their networks to block or slow down rivals web traffic. Companies like Google, Amazon, and Yahoo say the rules are needed to keep the Internet open for companies to innovate. But the internet companies say that's not the case. They say new regulation will choke off investment in broadband networks.
The issue is politically charged. President Obama promised net neutrality in his presidential campaign. Today, his presidential rival, Sen. John McCain, introduced legislation that would block the FCC from issuing new rules, calling the FCC's effort a "government takeover of the Internet that will stifle innovation."
Critics call net neutrality "a solution in search of a problem." Supporters say it's needed to keep the web "open and free." Critics say it will cost jobs. Supporters say it will help create jobs. ISI analyst Bill Whyman says it's "frustratingly difficult" to get at the truth. He points out that about one percent of users drive 20% of network traffic, and with limited network capacity, allowing complete freedom to a few may be "unfair" to most.
The FCC commissioners today made clear they would delve carefully into new regulations for the net, trying to find the right balance between keeping the Internet open while still encouraging investment in broadband.
Comments
Good post. I've provided a link to my analysis of the FCC's proposed open Internet regs, including how they in effect are about turning private broadband companies into de facto public utilities. http://www.precursorblog.com/content/takeaways-fccs-proposed-open-internet-regs
Scott Cleland
Chairman of Netcompetition.org, an eforum supported by broadband companies
It comes down to telecom companies wanting to maintain a reliable revenue model. They can't give unlimited network resources to everyone because it costs money to buy, install, and maintain the equipment for processing all that data. It wasn't much of an issue until interest in streaming voice calls and video downloads skyrocketed - using thousands of times more resources than basic email and web browsing.
I really don't see how the consumer can win with these proposals. With Net Neutrality, all internet subscriptions become unlimited everything, so either Internet service fees will have to be raised much higher to fund higher-capacity networks, or telecoms will have to be rescued by a taxpayer bailout like the major banks just to stay in business. Or I suppose they could just greatly lower the speed offered for all broadband internet service, so the cost of net neutrality would be restrained. I think that's the best solution of all - it will place our nation dead last among developed nations in internet service and deal a crushing blow to all those "innovative" technology companies whose business models rely on telecoms giving them free bandwidth.