• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 The FCC is poised to vote this week on whether to issue a Notice of ProposedRulemaking (NPRM) for net neutrality  which would initiate a public commentprocess to provide input to the Commis-sion on this issue. In some ways this isnot a surprise. In the last several yearsdiscussions of the issue of net neutral-ity have dominated telecommunicationspolicy discourse in the United States, al-most drowning out discussion of a hostof other important issues such as inter-carrier compensation reform, broadbanddeployment policies, and universal ser- vice reform, to name just a few.But after Congressional hearings, hun-dreds of forums and white papers, andthousands of blog postings and op-eds(some of which ITIF has participated inor written), it’s not clear that the Wash-ington telecommunications policy com-munity is all that much further along interms of really understanding the issueof net neutrality and being able to have adecision process grounded on a commonand fully informed understanding of theproblem and the potential solutions.In part this is due to the highly chargednature of the debate. Both opponents andproponents of strong net neutrality rulessee the implementation of the other side’sposition as a fundamental threat to theInternet and to the business models thatsupport it. Opponents of strong rules fearthat rules will reduce or even eliminateinnovative business models
in 
the net- work, including incentives by carriers toinvest in the network and to continually improve it. Proponents of strong rulesfear that lack of rules will reduce or eveneliminate innovative business
at the edge 
of the network, including hampering new 
small rms trying out new and possibly 
transformative applications. Proponentsalso fear that absent strong rules, ISPs
 will stie free speech and needed civic
discourse that is the hallmark of our new Internet-enabled democracy. With thestakes this high, no wonder emotions run
higher and tempers are.
But emotions are not a substitute for anal-ysis and making rules about an issue asimportant as this requires careful, com-prehensive and objective analysis. Yet,as the FCC considers its NPRM on netneutrality, what is surprising is that thisis an issue that is characterized more by diametrically opposed views of the prob-lem and solution than by careful analy-sis. To be sure, some of these views re-
ect interests of businesses with a stake
in either solution. And to be sure, some views represent strongly held ideologicalpositions regarding the primacy of core values (freedom of contract and action vs.freedom of speech and access). But eventaking into consideration the polariza-tion of views that is par for the course in Washington on so many issues, the lack 
by robert d. atkinson
 | october 19, 2009
 Are We Ready to Act on Net Neutrality?:10 Key Questions That Need Answers
the InformatIon technology & InnovatIon foundatIon
     w     e       b
     m     e     m     o
The Inormation Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is a nonproft, non- partisan public policy think tank committed to articulating and advanc- ing a pro-productivity,pro-innovation and pro- technology public policy agenda internationally,in Washington and in the states.For more inormation,contact ITIF at 202-449-1351 or at mail@iti.org, or visit www.innovationpolicy.org.
ITIF
 
page 2
The inormaTion Technology & innovaTion oundaTion
|
 
W
m
of even basic agreement on the nature of this issue (netneutrality), much less the solution, is troubling, to say the least. It is as if each side has been talking—or insome cases, yelling—past each other. When the stateof debate and discourse for an issue is this polarizedand frankly underdeveloped, this does not bode wellfor the likelihood that the government will get it rightif they take action now without engaging in more sus-tained and careful analysis.Let me suggest ten key questions that those of us in- volved in this debate, including the FCC and Congress,need to get a much better handle on before taking ac-tion:Does any favoring of some packets over others by 1.ISPs without individual consumer choice representa per se violation, or is there some discrimination(blocking, degrading, charging for usage andnetwork management) that is pro-competitive andpro-consumer. If it is all a per se violation, thenthe case for strict rules and/or legislation is quitestrong. If, however, some kinds of discrimination
benet the lion’s share of consumers and/or
competitors then strict per se rules, while limiting potential harmful actions by ISP’s, would also
limit benecial actions.
 What is the record of ISPs with regard to engaging 2.in anti-consumer and/or anti-competitivediscrimination in the past? If the record is amoderate or extensive one it suggests that actionis needed. If the record is quite limited it suggeststhat action may not needed.What is the likelihood that ISPs will engage in anti-3.consumer and/or anti-competitive discriminationin the future? Again, if the likelihood is strong, itsuggests that action is needed. Conversely, if thelikelihood is limited, it suggests that action may not be needed.What is the risk to innovation and consumer wel-4.fare if ISPs engage in anti-consumer and/or anti-competitive discrimination in the future? Even if the likelihood of action is small, if the risk to in-novation and consumer welfare is large, action islikely needed. Conversely, if the risk is minimal,action may not be needed.How easy is it for the user community (including 5.non-ISP business competitors) and government toaccurately detect anti-consumer or anti-competi-tive actions by ISPs in a timely manner? If ISPscan engage in these practices for a long period of time without discovery, action is likely needed. Butif companies’ potential transgressions are quickly found out, the need for action may be less.How easy is it for the players involved (advocacy 6.groups, researchers, government, competitors,and ISPs) to distinguish between pro-consumerand/or pro-competitive blocking, degrading andnetwork management and anti-consumer and/oranti-competitive blocking, degrading and network 
management? If it’s difcult to determine with
certainty if discrimination is pro-consumer and/or pro-competitive than the case for per se ruleslimiting discrimination is stronger. If it is morestraightforward, albeit with some analysis and
fact-nding, to determine pro-consumer from
anti-consumer discrimination then the case for arule of reason approach is stronger.Is differential pricing by ISPs of different users7.and/or different content and applicationsinherently bad? Or can differential pricing bepro-consumer and pro-competition, and if so, what are the situations in which it is and is not? If it is inherently bad then a per-se rule would be inorder. If it depends on the situation then a rule of reason approach would be in order.Does quick discovery of potential ISP transgres-8.sions lead to correction in the marketplace due topublic outcry and loss of customers or are ISPslikely be able to “get away with” transgressions ab-sent direct government action? If it’s the former,the case for strong rules is less. If it’s the latter,then the case for strong rules is stronger.Does the FCC have the legal authority it needs9.to effectively and expeditiously stop potentialanti-competitive and/or anti-consumer ISP prac-tices? If they lack this authority, the case for giving it to them is obviously stronger.Does the FCC have the skill and inclination10.to effectively and expeditiously stop potential
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...