Category: Internet Neutrality

Big Cable: Net neutrality violates ISP 1st Amendment rights

Cable internet providers are arguing that possible FCC rules ordering Internet Service Providers (ISPs) not to exert any discrimination that flows over their network.

“…the First Amendment is framed as a shield for citizens, not a sword for government.” True enough, the First Amendment “promotes democratic values,” McSlarrow added, “but it does so best by freeing citizens from government regulation of their speech, not by regulating it.” …

“I don’t know how to say it any more clearly than this,” McSlarrow reiterated. “Internet Service Providers do not threaten free speech; their business is to enable speech and they are part of an ecosystem that represents perhaps the greatest engine for promotion of democracy and free expression in history.”

This strikes me as a bit of a stretch. If we’re to look back to the media landscape that existed when the Constitution was written, we might equate ISPs to paper. Much like paper, ISPs provide a medium by which others are able to communicate. Seen in this light, the framers would certainly have argued for “paper neutrality.” Given their opposition to the British tax on paper (in the Stamp Act of 1765), I think the framers would want to guarantee the free flow of information–be it over paper or the network.

Perhaps ISPs should be grateful they were not forced to open their networks to competitors in the Brand X decision.

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.

GOP senators: Net neutrality rule making must be bipartisan (Ars)

Republican senators are asking that any net neutrality regulations be a bipartisan effort, which is fine, so long as we’re talking about Republicans and Democrats and not the public and business interests.

“We do not believe that the Commission should adopt regulations based merely on anecdotes, or in an effort to alleviate the political pressures of the day, if the facts do not clearly demonstrate that a problem needs to be remedied,” they wrote.

What has always interested me about this point is that, in my view, internet neutrality is an effort to maintain the status quo — not “speculation about what may happen in the future.”

“As we analyze this situation further, we remain hopeful that any future Commission action will create an atmosphere that is conducive to promoting freedom, investment and innovation not only at the edge of the Internet but at its core as well.”

The problem with this logic is that by making the core anything less than a commons, the edge stands to suffer both from a public sphere and business standpoint. Traffic throttling and packet inspection along the very heart of the Internet don’t seem like “innovation” to me.

The Internet is about to die. Literally die! (Ars)

In a surprisingly simultaneous move, an industry-sponsored report was released stating that net traffic is growing and stands to be transformed by the costs that this might impose on carriers.

When far right and left wing groups are working together on an issue, you can bet that it has bipartisan support.