RSSHow to solve the net neutrality issue
By Sonia Arrison, TechNewsWorld | Published November 2, 2009, 10:19 AM
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently voted to move forward on a rule-making process that could lead to new government regulations for the Internet. That is what the FCC and some activist groups want, although they claim to be supporting only "neutrality." Even key players seem confused.
The Open Internet Coalition (OIC) says neutrality "is about keeping the hands of several powerful network operators -- AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast -- off the Internet, preventing them from taking steps to change the basic open nature of the Net that has led to its success."
That's a strange statement, given that without those companies, the Internet wouldn't function. Yet, restricting these communications firms sounds good to most Silicon Valley investors and CEOs, since they view them with suspicion as old companies, averse to change and detrimental to the growth of the Net.
No wonder, then, that a bunch of prominent venture capitalists and tech CEOs signed OIC letters last week urging the FCC to protect the "open nature" of the Net.
After all, who could possibly be against an open Internet? Unfortunately, asking the FCC to "protect" the Internet means inviting government oversight, which injects more politics -- not less -- into the operation of the Net. FCC to Set Prices?
Tim Draper, one of Silicon Valley's prominent venture capitalists, said he signed the OIC letter because he is worried that the phone companies want to "muscle in and create some sort of monopoly" over the Internet. He and others are concerned that if they don't stand up, then the Internet will become captured by special interests that lobby government for favors. However, when asked if the phone companies are a greater threat than government regulation, Draper responded with a strong "no."
"I hope that they (government regulators) leave it alone," Draper said. "The Internet is working beautifully as it is."
Many in Silicon Valley share that view, yet the Open Internet Coalition has something else in mind.
Its Web site claims Net neutrality would "give regulators a limited role to protect the openness of a national network," and it laments the 2005 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a decision forcing cable companies to share their networks with competitors at government-approved prices.
In other words, the OIC wants the FCC not only to become a watchdog, but also possibly to get involved in managing and pricing Internet services.
Anyone who has followed how well the FCC "managed competition" in telecommunications gasps with horror at the thought that a similar fate might await the Net. Indeed, even the left-leaning Electronic Frontier Foundation is worried about the FCC's move toward Net neutrality regulations since, as EFF staff attorney Corynne McSherry correctly argues, "experience shows that the FCC is particularly vulnerable to regulatory capture and has a history of ignoring grassroots public opinion."
Hope Is Not Enough
Ashwin Navin, cofounder of BitTorrent, also says he doesn't support government regulation of the Net, even though his name appears on an OIC letter. He says he'd rather see Internet service providers come up with a self-regulatory plan based on a pledge to keep the Net open and the creation of a third body to arbitrate. Indeed, Navin says that his own company's scuffle with Comcast was ultimately solved without formal rules after a netizen noticed that Comcast was degrading service and brought the matter to the public's attention.
"The problem is disclosure," Navin says. "Consumers need to know if the ISP, which is the most invisible layer in the stack, is responsible for an improved or degraded experience for any of the services they use."
That is a very good point -- one that the telcos and cable companies would be silly to ignore.
Tim Draper is right that the Internet is working beautifully as it is. However, experience teaches that it's not enough to hope government regulators will leave it alone. If the tech industry and the major ISPs want to avoid government regulation and keep the Internet thriving, they need to come up with a way to solve the disclosure problem on their own in the marketplace.
Verizon has already started taking steps toward a more constructive stance by co-signing a letter with Google supporting an open Internet. Now it is time for all companies involved to take it to the next level. If that happens, US innovators will be much safer from the claims of militant rent-seeking activists and regulators who want to get their hands on the Net.
The creation of TRUSTe helped the tech industry mobilize and avoid heavy-handed privacy regulations like those that befell Europe. Now it is time for ISPs to support an independent, private body to monitor neutrality issues. Such a move would deflate the pro-regulation lobby and allay the concerns of the industry that is driving US growth.
Sonia Arrison, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is senior fellow in technology studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute. Follow her on Twitter @soniaarrison
© 2009 ECT News Network. All rights reserved.
© 2009 BetaNews.com. All rights reserved.
Excellent article. Finally someone on betanews that doesnt blindly follow the Net Neutrality BS.
Score: 0
|The way to solve net neutrality is simple. Split the carriers into two parts. One for the local loop and the other to sell services. Let the local loop be controlled by public utility laws . They would provide the fiber to the home and the local infrastructure only. They would not be allowed to sell services like tv, bandwidth or voip, just lease the lines to anyone wanting to use them. That way anyone can sell services to every home and you have 5-10 choices per home. Competition keeps each provider in check and over usage of things like p2p users can choose providers that fit their usage patterns while the rest of us get to pick other providers.
As long as there is a local monopoly it will never be fair or neutral.
You can see a video presentation and sample of what the legislation would look like here:
http://www.ionary.com/vis.html
Score: 0
|"After all, who could possibly be against an open Internet? Unfortunately, asking the FCC to 'protect' the Internet means inviting government oversight, which injects more politics -- not less -- into the operation of the Net."
Oh please, I like betanews and it's thoughtful in depth coverage. But this post is so ideological it's ridiculous. The FCC is no more political than the ISPs and phone companies. This is about changing a little bit who gets to make the decisions about how the internet works in the U.S. Should that be unelected CEOs of a few large businesses who are acting only for the purpose of the profit of their company and their own paychecks (which may or may not dovetail with consumer interests)? Or a government body that has some accountability to the American people who are the actual users of the internet? It's political no matter how you cut it. It's' just a question of whether or not we want to hand all the power over to a few CEOs. (Look at what a great job they did with the banking industry or health care. It's easy to find counter examples whatever side you take in this debate.)
Also the reality (which this article itself acknowledges) is that if the government wasn't pushing the ISPs and phone companies, they would never feel compelled to come up with their own solution and head off the FCC. So the idea that these companies will come up with open net policies completely on their own is absurd. It shows that there is a dynamic between the government and private industry and there are many ways for this to play out, be that regulation or simply the threat of regulation.
And you know, the whole idea of "regulation" itself as some sort of boogey monster is also absurd. There is no such thing as an unregulated market. All markets are defined by laws, written by governments, that allow them to work. Without those laws we'd have 19th century robber barons, chaos, and huge amounts of organized crime (like in Russia right now). Businesses like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast like regulations/laws as much as anyone, they just want ones that favor them, often times over the consumer. When the rules favor businesses, we call it the law or creating a level playing field, when the rules favor consumers we call it regulation and demonize it.
Score: 3
|Reading you was refeshing :)
thanks.
Score: 0
|BN is being kind here, but they know the score (its clearly telegraphed in this piece). The FCC's "net neutrality" plans are a means to reallocate wealth, reshape the telecom landscape and switch off internet voices that offend the government. Its a power grab over the one media stream they don't control, the Internet. This has nothing to do with creating a level playing field - if the FCC's vision is implemented fully, government will be handing the net over to those companies which agree with the current administration's policies (i.e. hiring more "minorities", purging websites that question federal authority, and so on). Those on the left obviously think this is a wonderful idea...completely forgetting that in a couple years they may be the ones on the outside looking in. Right now, I can use Skype over my telephone company's internet service. I can stream Netflix on virtually any cable provider's pipe. Sure, it would be nice to have a law that insures my ability to do these things but does anyone believe that'll be *all* it does? With things the way they are in Washington right now, the darker parts of any "neutrality" bill will probably be hidden from the public entirely.
Score: -1
|This would be a good article until you realize that the telcos had to be brought kicking and screaming to the internet table because they saw it as competition and in the USA create local monopolies so as to hold the price high for users.
Snide comments about European privacy regulation hide the fact that in the States the ISPs seem to think they have the right to use Phorm-like packet snooping technology.
I think this USA centric article only shows that the writer needs to travel.
Score: 1
|What are you talking about? The article is about rules the FCC (an American Government body) want to impose upon American ISP's who serve American (mostly) customers. Why wouldn't the article be American centric?
Score: 1
|because we're supposed to be a "global community" by now, duh?
Score: 0
|