By: Arthur Cooper
Submitted: 2010-12-27 21:59:24 | Word Count: 664
Today is D-Day for the vote on the first net neutrality rules, to be passed today by the FCC. The issue is far from resolved, although chief architect of the Order, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski seems to think it is.
This vote will affect absolutely everyone who uses the internet, from online businesses to end users and consumers. Various people have come out against the Order, some saying it will put government regulators in the middle of an issue where it doesn’t belong, leading to stifled innovation. Others claim the highly interpretive rules aren’t neutral enough, and will result two different kinds of internet, one where there is actual neutrality and another that will allow content providers to stifle their competition and squeeze users with higher bills and less choices.
[ advertisement ]
The Atlantic Monthly came out with two editorial pieces today arguing each side. On the business end side are arguments surrounding the central issue: that wireless networks will be less regulated. Those against net neutrality claim that while both wireline and wireless internet providers should be non-discriminatory and have transparency, wireless internet is, well, special. They claim that since wireless technology is extremely competitive and innovative, and since it requires any governing body to have a serious amount of technical knowledge to understand it, it should be unfettered by government regulations in terms of forcing it to be neutral.
Another issue is that the Order as written will not allow wireless companies to charge content providers extra fees for better service. Many in the business sector imply this is a form government hypocrisy, since the USPS can charge extra for faster service. However, those in favor of enforcing net neutrality point to this issue as proof of the damaging effects a lack of neutrality could have.
Their claim is that if wireless internet service providers can charge content providers extra for faster connections, then it would lead to stifled competition with disastrous effects for the end users, i.e., the public. Wireless internet services could give preferential treatment to their own products, permitting them to load faster and driving the market to their interests, while simultaneously sticking higher access prices to competitors who want to reach the same market. Although the current Order prohibits this, the terms it outlines are so general as to be interpretive, possibly leading to this type of development anyway.
In other words, if you want to access Hulu for your favorite show, you could do it easily on a wireline home computer, but depending on your wireless provider, logging on to their site could be slow enough to deter you from using it on a regular basis.
Proponents of net neutrality claim that the two sets of rules will ultimately lead to the wireless internet world developing one way, where unfair negotiations can give way to unfair advantage and stifled competition that doesn’t give users a say in what products are truly winning their hearts; and wireline internet world, where there is neutrality, all users will have the same experience, and the caliber of the goods/ services will determine online companies’ market share.
So it seems both sides are worried about stifling competition; they just each envision it happening in a different way and with different accompanying results. Genachowski’s Order aims to take the middle road. Only time will tell how the Order plays out in everyday business, but it will undoubtedly set the stage for any further regulation in the years to come, affecting us all.
