Ars Technical reports today about a report produced by Havard Law’s Berkman Center for the FCC.

The thing I like most about it is how the problems of today are traced to the (arguably failed) Brand X Supreme Court decision, which classified internet providers as information services. This allowed cable (and eventually phone) companies to keep their pipes as their own, as opposed to opening them to competing services.

Remember dial-up? We’re comparing that model (where your phone company couldn’t discriminate between AOL or Compuserve) with the oligopoly we have today. When you consider the difference between these two models, the debate over Net Neutrality suddenly becomes more salient–open neutral pipes up to competition, or subject yourself to regulation to ensure unencumbered carriage of the public’s bits.

The telecos, however, are crying foul and declaring the report as biased. However, in the historical and international context it’s hard to claim that the system we currently have is working well. I’ll admit I need to read the report, but a comparison to other countries that have not traveled the same regulatory path as us hardly seems biased.

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.