Richard Bennet, an engineer who among other things works on Internet standards, comments on why the FCC should stay out of the internet neutrality fight. He convincingly argues why “the Internet is too neutral in some places, and not neutral enough in others.” I for one truly value hearing some of the complexities of net traffic explained so well. A little bit of technical understanding is great transparency.
There are, however, a two crucial points that Bennet misses:
- Engineering or technical decisions can have a social impact: Inventions and design decisions don’t happen in a social vacuum. While sometimes these effects are unintended, often a good technical design can change the way that people use technology.
- It is the FCC’s job to balance the politics and the engineering: As a governmental body, the FCC has been charged with doing more than setting technical standards. They (supposedly) regulate for the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” An example of their operating beyond technical standards-setting is the “must carry” rule in cable television. Rather than require television owners or manufacturers to use an “A-B” switch to select cable or over-the-air television, the FCC requires cable operators to include local broadcast stations in their service. Despite the fact that there was a technical means to this end, the FCC stepped in to resolve a dispute between rivaling television providers.
If I were an engineer, I would want to steer clear of the politics of technology; yet, the potential for. Yes “engineers solve engineering problems,” but there are historical lessons, political interests, and a number of other factors that a governing body like the FCC must balance. If there are places where the Internet is not neutral enough, past experience is a good guide for why we can’t simply trust the businesses that provide the service.