Ars Technica narrates a fictitious script between Nancy Regulator and Freddy Freemarket, whereby the two debate whether there is ’cause for action’ on the part of the FCC in Internet neutrality. The entire argument turns on whether service providers’ previous efforts to shape or alter traffic count as “anecdotes” or evidence for the need for regulation.
I’ve said before that I felt there was a misunderstanding about the regulation–that it simply is trying to maintain the status quo of the “End to End” principle. I know realize that those who disagree with me likely were arguing that businesses should be free to innovate and change their product however they see fit. Yet, the problem with this argument, I still feel, is that the “Internet” isn’t a product at all–it’s a service. Regulations are needed to make sure that the service works in a uniform way across all providers. In my mind, that’s just a cost of doing business in this area. Naturally, providers are free to innovate on the end as the regulations only impact their ability to shape what flows through their pipes.