Doug Sicker in The Hill: Net neutrality debate fails to recognize middle ground

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> Date: October 2, 2017 at 5:19:21 PM EDT
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Doug Sicker in The Hill: Net neutrality debate fails to recognize middle ground
>
>
> //////
> The Hill: Net neutrality debate fails to recognize middle ground
> Doug Sicker (Opinion)    
> 10/2/17
>
> The Federal Communications Commission gathered on Sept. 26 in Washington D.C. in hopes of finally settling the net 
> neutrality debate. While there are a host of issues central to this debate — regulatory authority, privacy, 
> transparency, innovation — the question that lies at the heart of net neutrality is fairly simple: Is the internet a 
> public utility with certain carriage obligations on providers of this service?
>
> If it’s a public utility, as it was deemed by the Federal Communications Commission in the 2015 Open Internet Order, 
> then the government is permitted to regulate ISPs to make sure they do not intentionally provide faster internet to 
> companies who can pay more, or slower internet to those who don’t – or can’t.
>
> Since at times these companies could be rivals, this would put ISPs in the role of picking winners or losers among or 
> between companies offering potentially the same services, based on their differing abilities to pay.
>
> If it isn’t a public utility and not regulated as such, however, varying the speeds of internet access for different 
> customers in order to make more money is suddenly “on the table.”
>
> Those against the FCC’s proposed rollback of net neutrality regulations fear that allowing ISPs to control internet 
> speed based on ability-to-pay will lead to an internet tilted in favor of companies with deeper pockets, not 
> necessarily better services. But according to the rollback’s supporters, the current net neutrality regulations put 
> in place by the Obama administration are an egregious overstepping of power on the part of the federal government, 
> and serve to stunt growth and innovation in the industry.
>
> But both sides fail to realize there is a middle ground — one that benefits consumers, but still keeps control from 
> being pushed too far in either direction. It does not have to be either the federal government in control or ISPs. It 
> does not have to be one to the exclusion of the other.
>
> In fact, one could argue that a very workable compromise would be to move back to a regulatory regime — whether 
> through FCC efforts, a narrowly focused legislative solution, or some combination of the two — in essence 
> representing the original rules in the first Open Internet Order (no blocking, no throttling, etc.), but not 
> including the current Title II classification. 
>
> No matter what happens, however, both sides of the debate may fear that the FCC’s upcoming decision could set in 
> motion a pendular swing of the regulatory environment that could be seen initially by many as quite de-regulatory, 
> but come the next change in administration, may swing back to what others might say is over-regulatory. This 
> potential cycle of over-correcting then under-correcting could leave the entire internet ecosystem with far too much 
> uncertainty in the long run. Businesses could either under-invest or over-invest depending on whether they were 
> looking at the long-term or short-term, new products or services, or even entire companies that should be created may 
> not be where there is too much regulation, while practices that are harmful to consumers or particular parts of the 
> ecosystem could spring up when there is a regulatory vacuum.
>
> There should be another way forward, one that codifies the rules everyone agrees on — which again looks to be those 
> rules in the original Open Internet Order but without Title II, and that in this sense balances the concerns of all 
> sides and gives longer-term regulatory certainty. 
>
> This would hopefully result in a more stable regulatory environment protective of both the expectations of consumers, 
> and the needs of applications developers and edge providers, while at the same time being pro-innovation for all 
> involved. 
> Unfortunately, it is possible that the only outcome we can be sure of is that the debate will continue.
>
> Doug Sicker is the Department head of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon. He is also the previous chief 
> technology officer at the Department of Commerce and the chief technology officer at the Federal Communications 
> Commission



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20171002205747:DD630B52-A7D5-11E7-A216-9584614B27EC
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com