InsideTech

News >> Browse Articles >> Business

Is Net Neutrality a Deceptive Idea?

Oct. 16—Almost anyone who talks about Net neutrality is all for treating all types of data equally. Skeptics and opponents give it a more accurate name: Internet regulation.

Whatever you call it, it’s coming.

A rulemaking process is expected to start next week, led by Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He and a majority of the members of the FCC are proponents of what they see as a necessary prohibition against discrimination among Internet applications, providers and products.

The danger they might overlook is how tight regulations could stifle the Internet’s unprecedented growth, frighten away investors and delay new products and services.

Both sides of the debate hold up worthy principles, such as freedom of speech for everyone using the Internet.

But there’s also the issue of freedom of the press, which prohibits the government from dictating what must be published.

None of this is as clear-cut as net-neutrality proponents say.

Also at stake is who will pay for the hardware that enables the speech to freely flow to computers and a fast-evolving assortment of handheld devices.

Those in favor of new rules say that it would be wrong for the owners of the cables and switches — companies such as Verizon and Bright House — to charge extra for certain services. Every packet of electronic data has the right to be treated the same, they say.

It’s important to remember that the owners of the networks, who took economic risks in laying the wires, have rights, too.

Many other companies have piggybacked on the success of the providers of fast Internet lines. They include major sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Craig’s List, Google, Netflix, eBay and Amazon.com.

Genachowski seems to want customers to continue paying flat rates, no matter what or how much they download.

The unsavory possibility does exist that the Internet providers could herd their customers toward their own products by charging extra for use of rival services or simply by slowing it down.

So far that has not happened to any great degree, but such behavior would hurt competition.

A simple prohibition of discrimination could also give unlimited free lunches to greedy broadband hogs, at the expense of everyone else.

Any new rules need to be flexible, as communications services merge, cell phones become e-mail tools, laptops handle voice mail and everyone becomes a potential publisher or movie producer wherever they go.

Video streaming and file sharing are consuming broadband space at increasing rates.

The FCC cannot dismiss the question of who will have an incentive to pay to expand the network when capacity runs out.

If you’re downloading movies and songs, should you pay the same as a neighbor who only browses the Web?

Do wireless users have the same rights as cable users?

Should Internet telephone service be regulated, and if so, should customers in rural areas be guaranteed access equal to urban residents?

Genachowski has said, “We will do as much as we need to, and no more.” The emphasis should be on the “no more.”

© 2009, YellowBrix, Inc._