Bye Bye Network Neutrality
Late last week the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released its long awaited Broadband Network Competition Policy report and you can be assured that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Justice, the three regulatory bodies that have dominion over competition and the Internet in the US, will be paying close attention to, and taking their leads from, this report.
This is a long (170 page) report and I’ve only read some 30 pages or so but in summary they do not find any problem in last mile providers engaging in discriminatory packet prioritization and have issued a cop-out for responsibility
…t is not always a simple matter to apply the FTC Act’s prohibitions against deceptive and unfair practices to broadband Internet access services. Moreover, both the telephone companies and the cable companies, which together provide the majority of broadband residential connections, have traditionally offered more highly regulated services. The move to a less regulated regime may require a significant conceptual shift for some in the industry to think about broad consumer protection standards that are applicable to broadband offerings. Commentators have proposed other measures – in addition to enforcement of the consumer protection laws – to ensure that the interests of consumers are adequately protected in this important industry. As discussed below, these measures include industry self-regulation and FTC guidance. (p.140)
My biggest concern with the loss of network neutrality has always been the very real possibility of political shenanigans. It’s no secret that the GOP is far friendlier to large companies than the Democrats are. In today’s communication industry they have pretty much got a lock on loyalty from the boards, CEOs and other decision makers. With the loss of any form of network neutrality it will be one more tool for the GOP to continue to steal elections. Imagine if you would a large backbone provider like AT&T or QWest giving highly prioritized packets for GOP and GOP friendly sites and absolute worst best case packet priority to Democratic or Democratic friendly sites. What if all the major backbone providers did the same? When challenged they could demand usurious rate charges from the Democrats and it would all be perfectly legal. They do not have to charge the same to each customer - it’s just a business negotiation and the GOP negotiated a better deal. As a political force if you can’t get your message out you’re a former political force.
I did a search through the entire document to see if they discuss this problem, I can tell you they really did not. It got very cursory treatment on four, count ‘em folks, four pages (9, 56, 63 and in a footnote on 64)and much of that was duplicated material. The gist was they acknowledged that some people were worried about it but they were confident the free market would solve the problem.
The Contours of the Debate
Proponents of network neutrality regulation include, among others, some content and applications providers, non-facilities-based ISPs, and various commentators. They generally argue that “non-neutral” practices will cause significant and wide-ranging harms and that the existing jurisdiction of the FCC, FTC, and DOJ, coupled with Congressional oversight, are insufficient to prevent or remedy those harms. Proponents suggest that, with deregulation of broadband services, providers of certain broadband Internet services have the legal ability, as well as economic incentives, to act as gatekeepers of content and applications on their networks. Principally, these advocates express concern about the following issues: (1) blockage, degradation, and prioritization of content and applications; (2) vertical integration by ISPs and other network operators into content and applications; (3) effects on innovation at the “edges” of the network (that is, by content and applications providers); (4) lack of competition in “last-mile” broadband Internet access markets; (5) remaining legal and regulatory uncertainty in the area of Internet access; and (6) the diminution of political and other expression on the Internet.
Not all proponents of net neutrality regulation oppose all forms of prioritization, however. For example, some believe that prioritization should be permitted if access to the priority service is open to all content and applications providers on equal terms; that is, without regard to the identity of the content or application provider.
Opponents of network neutrality regulation include, among others, some facilities-based wireline and wireless network operators and other commentators. They maintain that net neutrality regulation will impede investment in the facilities necessary to upgrade Internet access and may hamper technical innovation. They also argue that the sorts of blocking conduct described by net neutrality proponents are mainly hypothetical thus far and are unlikely to be widespread and thus are insufficient to justify a new, ex ante regulatory regime (my emphasis).p.9
The emphasized portion above is, in the end, the position the FTC takes on the matter.
In simple speak my American friends (and the same is happening here) you’re fucked.
