The Net Neutrality Debate Picks up Steam…

There were two events on September 25 that demonstrated that the Net Neutrality debate is alive and well, revived by FCC Chairman Genachowski’s speech earlier in the week. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a report, “Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate.”  It was launched with the help of its primary author, network architect, Richard Bennett, along with well-known Internet experts Christopher Yoo, John Day, and economist William Lehr. As an argument against using the end-to-end principle as a reason for net neutrality legislation, I think the presentation and viewpoints were very convincing. But about half-way through the session I began to ask myself... but what about the fact that a network owner who also produces content has an incentive for anti-competitive behavior against other content providers?  Engineering aside (and the engineering argument came across loud and clear), there is still substantial proof that this behavior has occurred and that there is no clear law against it. The panelists did not attempt to address the central issue in the net neutrality debate, that of discriminatory behavior; what they did address is the weakness of the end-to-end argument. They should have left it at that.

Across town, the New America Foundation (NAF) sponsored a debate on Broadband Competition Policy that was not focused on net neutrality, but as these things go, it kept wandering into that territory. In a very dynamic exchange between the panelists, four distinct philosophies of how to promote broadband competition emerged. On one hand, Ben Scott of Free Press advocates returning to the 1996 Telecom Act’s basic competitive framework that has worked well in other countries but was dismantled here. Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America feels that strong net neutrality regulation “can replace line sharing requirements” in promoting competition but that network owners must be compensated properly. Rob Atkinson of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation advocates a “proactive, watchful federal policy” and stated that competition might not be the only way to reach our goal of ubiquitous, high-speed, affordable broadband. Providing the perfect bookend for a lively debate was Everett Ehrlich, former under secretary of economic affairs at the Commerce Department and current president of ESC Company. Ehrlich feels that government basically doesn’t need to get involved, that things are working pretty well, that we have sufficient competition and that neutrality is the status quo.  The panelist’s excellent arguments exemplify the deep divisions on this issue and we are sure to see more of the same as the FCC opens net neutrality rulemaking proceedings in the coming months.