Regulating the Internet

Different traffic generates different costs of transmission solely because of the size or the route it takes. The FCC is saying that the price to pass on that traffic should depend on the route and size of the traffic, not the content.

There are plenty of reasons for and against “net neutrality”. You aren’t an expert on the technical issues involved, so you should get someone who is involved before you discuss technical issues here.

I concur with Robert’s advice to learn more about this topic. The situation does not admit a purely theoretical libertarian analysis. I can’t believe I’m doing this, but I actually recommend that one start with an FCC lawyer’s take on this policy change. As Schlick describes it, this most recent policy change is a way of keeping regulators away from the internet itself while allowing them to police how privileged carriers deign to allow their captive markets access to the internet.

We’ve all heard telco execs proclaim their determination to “keep the gubmint’s hands off the internet!”, despite the fact that rely on regulation for their monopolies. (Had they realized the import of SIP and other voice protocols a decade earlier, they would have directed the FCC and PUCs to kill the internet in its cradle.) Regulation is awful when applied to them, but required for anyone who’d like to compete with them. Now we hear they’re going to invest their billions in something besides new network infrastructure, and I say we should call their bluff. Just what are they going to invest in, if it isn’t more last mile capacity? It’s not like the customer wants to buy anything else. (Sadly for the carriers, the decades over which they could market e.g. “new voicemail products” as “innovation” are long past.) Are we to believe that no one besides Verizon and AT&T are capable of serving our data connection needs? How would that situation have come about? It’s pretty clear from incumbent actions over the last decade that they don’t want to provide what the consumer requires, and will use their privileged position to prevent all other parties from filling the gap.

Whether I’m credible in saying this or not, I’m the last person to defend the FCC or any of their incumbent-friendly policies like USF, the end of network unbundling, the glacial pace of whitespaces, etc. Normally the FCC is just another tool that the carriers use to keep their local monopolies in line. However, as the wags say, “elections matter”. I’m not sure who at AT&T corporate screwed up the bribe handoff, and maybe this Genachowski character hasn’t given any thought to his retirement whatsoever, but it seems that the current commission majority wants to see broadband providers compete on the basis of connection speed and price, without reference to who “owns” the subsidized network or whose cable already passes the house. It’s about bloody time. If this commission lives up to that promise, it will almost make up for every other aspect of Obama’s disastrous term as President.