[LINK] pipes or content

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

As one expects, the Wall Street Journal is firmly anti-gov-intervention,
and all-praise-free-competition. Despite that, this seems a worthy read.

The question is approx: should video-downloaders pay more than emailers?

--
NOVEMBER 1, 2009, 7:20 P.M. The Wall Street Journal

Will the Internet Survive Its 40th? 

Net neutrality battle pits broadband builders against content providers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574509492652408418.
html

The Internet recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of its founding, 
just in time to be welcomed in Washington by opposing political visions 
of its future. 

One is reflected in a proposal called the Internet Freedom Preservation 
Act, which would empower regulators to micromanage the Web. 

The alternative, the Internet Freedom Act of 2009, would keep regulators 
away.

As their similar names suggest, these laws .. are both ostensibly 
intended to keep the Internet open. The two sides disagree about whether 
the way to do this is via firmer control or by keeping regulators away.

Into this divide has marched the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 
which under the banner of "net neutrality" proposes an expansion of its 
powers over the Web. 

The agency argues it needs to control broadband Internet providers to 
make sure they don't discriminate in favor of or against any particular 
content, application or device. 

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski acknowledges that his agency operates in 
an "uncertain legal framework" that makes it unclear what power it has to 
set rules on the Web. 

Despite this uncertainty, he wants his agency to "evaluate violations of 
the nondiscrimination principle as they arise, on a case-by-case basis."

One way to look at the battle over net neutrality is simply as one set of 
companies against another. 

There are the network owners and administrators, who want to continue to 
control access rules, pricing and traffic management on their networks. 

Then there are content companies and other users of the network, who want 
regulators to ensure easy access for them.

The corporate dividing lines are growing hazier. Microsoft and Yahoo 
recently dropped out of a net-neutrality lobbying group. 

Google, which has in the past supported some definition of net 
neutrality, is now not so sure about the wisdom of giving regulators 
broad authority. "It is possible for the government to screw the Internet 
up big time," Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt recently told the 
Washington Post.

Even the FCC proposal yields on many once-sacred net-neutrality precepts. 

Its rules would be subject to "reasonable network management," so that 
providers could treat bandwidth-hogging content such as video differently 
from simple email. Providers would be able to respond to increasing 
demand by rationing services through premium-pricing models.

The uncertainty over how to ensure an open Web is the latest example of 
how technology is moving so quickly that our regulatory institutions 
can't keep up. 

A new book, "The Laws of Disruption" by technology consultant Larry 
Downes, explains this gap with a powerful idea: "Technology changes 
exponentially, but social, economic and legal systems change 
incrementally." 

We're used to ever-increasing computing power and endless innovation 
online, but politicians and regulators are left trying to manage 
technologies beyond their control or understanding.

"The mistake regulators and those who enable them continue to make is 
trying to micromanage individual technologies or applications," Mr. 
Downes writes. "The bottom line is simple. Encouraging infrastructure is 
good; micromanaging it is bad." 

Why do emotions run so high on what is in essence a technical debate 
about how to run a network? 

Mr. Downes told me last week that "consumers have been done a great 
disservice by corporate interests on both sides of this fight, who have 
reduced a complicated business and technical problem into a sound bite. 

They've been told that net neutrality is nothing more and nothing less 
than a fight for the soul of the Internet."

His view is that "U.S. consumers have plenty of reasons to be suspicious 
of both the FCC and the communications industry." His advice: "Consumers 
should ask themselves which of these powerful interests is more likely in 
the end to abuse its power. Who, in other words, has the greater 
potential to make things worse for everyone?" 

His answer seems sensible: "Absent any evidence of serious market failure 
yet, I'd much rather deal with the devil I know than a resurgent FCC."

The best defense against access providers' acting unreasonably is more 
competition. 

The alternative would treat the modern network of the Web as if it were 
the 19th-century network of railroads, with the FCC as a modern-day 
version of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which set rail rules and 
tariffs, slowing innovation in transportation until the agency was 
abolished in 1995 as a bureaucratic anachronism. 

In highly regulated industries, regulations become barriers to entry. 

It's costly for new competitors to comply with the rules, which are 
designed for incumbents. As the U.S. falls further behind in broadband, 
we need more innovation and more competition, not a cozy, regulated 
cartel.

Technology may be changing faster than we can keep track, but we are well 
acquainted with the frailties and foibles of human institutions in 
Washington. Sometimes it's wiser for mortals to stand aside and leave 
technology to advance at its own pace. After its first 40 years 
delivering freedom and abundance, the Web has earned the benefit of the 
doubt.


Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server