To regulate or not regulate broadband services? That is the question. No business invites regulation that will limit their profits. Regulation is often the result of businesses pushing the envelope of business practices that eventually hurt the customer and/or the country as a whole. So regulation commonly arrives after the abuses have occurred, not in advance. The FCC is working toward broadband regulation before the possible service abuses can occur.My blog "The FCC Broadband Plan" discussed several of the over 100 comments made by the FCC concerning the future of broadband access and its control and regulation. It is a plan, not a ruling or legislation. The plan calls for a 10 year effort to expand broadband access to nearly everyone in the U.S.
The carriers are beginning to comment on the broadband plan contents. An article in the Washington Post published on March 25, 2010, "Telecom giant challenges FCC role in broadband" by Cecilia Kang provides some insight into the positions of Verizon and AT&T on this subject. The Washington Post article stated:
Tom Tauke, Verizon's top lobbyist, urged lawmakers to rethink the way the government oversees broadband, arguing that the FCC should shift to more of an enforcement role--like that of the Federal Trade Commission--from its current status as a rule-making body.
"In my view, the current statute is badly out of date. Now is the time to focus on updating the law affecting the Internet," Tauke said in a speech before a tech policy forum in Washington. "To fulfill broadband's potential, it's time for Congress to take a fresh look at our nation's communications policy framework." Tauke's comments echo recent questions raised about the FCC's jurisdiction over Internet services. Currently, the agency says it can oversee broadband providers as part of its supervision of other communications services. However, that power has been tested by a lawsuit filed against the FCC by cable giant Comcast that is before a federal appeals court.
"In my view, the current statute is badly out of date. Now is the time to focus on updating the law affecting the Internet," Tauke said in a speech before a tech policy forum in Washington. "To fulfill broadband's potential, it's time for Congress to take a fresh look at our nation's communications policy framework." Tauke's comments echo recent questions raised about the FCC's jurisdiction over Internet services. Currently, the agency says it can oversee broadband providers as part of its supervision of other communications services. However, that power has been tested by a lawsuit filed against the FCC by cable giant Comcast that is before a federal appeals court.
AT&T has also voiced its opinion that Congress, not the FCC, determine the laws for Internet oversight. A senior vice president of AT&T, Jim Cicconi, is quoted in the Washington Post article as stating:
If there are any questions about the authority of the FCC in the Internet ecosystem, the proper answer is not for the FCC to get adventurous in interpreting its authority, as some are urging.
The FCC is considering classifying broadband as a common carrier service. This means that the FCC would regulate the Internet service providers as the FCC regulates telephone companies. At this time, there is a court case with Comcast that is pending that could answer the question, does the FCC have the authority to regulate Internet services? If the FCC loses the court case, then its option is to reclassify the Internet services as common carrier services, thereby asserting jurisdiction.
It appears unlikely that Congress will take up this issue soon. Considering the Congress we have today, the broadband regulation issue will not be a high priority.
So what does this have to do with Net Neutrality? If the FCC has the regulatory power over the Internet, then the FCC's goals for Net Neutrality will move forward. If the FCC does not have the authority, then the service providers will have open season on the operation of the Internet and will pursue operations that most benefit them and not the customer. Not only will we have more confusing set of broadband offers, but the customer will have a harder time comparing providers. There will be more fees, traffic limitations, traffic management practices that force poor quality of service on heavy users and even possible limited or closed access to content sites.
I have AT&T Internet service. As part of the one sided agreement with AT&T, I can be cancelled if I am a bandwidth hog. What a bandwidth hog is, remains unclear. I can also have my service terminated if they deem I am publishing comments that they, AT&T, don't like, a form of censorship. Neither problem has occurred but should AT&T be able to censor my postings? I don't think so. So
