----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <[email protected]> ----- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:03:24 -0400 From: Dave Farber <[email protected]> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Washington Post Editorial on VZ/Google Proposal Reply-To: [email protected] To: ip <[email protected]> 0C085AE0-B10A-11DF-9947-D46D61E3AEB1:
Begin forwarded message: > From: "Hoewing, C. L." <[email protected]> > Date: August 26, 2010 7:03:15 AM EDT > To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW: Washington Post Editorial on VZ/Google Proposal > > Dave: > > For IP. > > LINK > > > How the FCC can best regulate the Internet > Thursday, August 26, 2010; A12 > > FOR MORE THAN a decade, "net neutrality" -- a commitment not to discriminate > in the transmission of Internet content -- has been a rule tacitly understood > by Internet users and providers alike. > > But in April, a court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission has no > regulatory authority over Internet service providers. For many, this put the > status quo in jeopardy. Without the threat of enforcement, might service > providers start shaping the flow of traffic in ways that threaten the online > meritocracy, in which new and established Web sites are equally accessible > and sites rise or fall on the basis of their ability to attract viewers? > > Such concern inspired a recent proposal from Google and Verizon that offers a > commitment to net neutrality accompanied by limited enforcement authority for > the FCC in cases where violations are suspected. The proposal is a compromise > between the desire of content providers to ensure that all content streams > are treated equally and that of access providers to maintain flexibility to > manage their networks. (Different parts of The Washington Post Co. provide > both content and Internet access.) Many Internet users have objected to the > proposal, complaining that its formulation of net neutrality leaves too many > loopholes. > > Much of this difficulty is inherent in codifying something that long has been > taken for granted. And the proposal includes many good elements -- especially > its designation of the FCC as an adjudicatory body such as the Federal Trade > Commission rather than one with intrusive regulatory authority. In a realm as > complex and evolving as the Internet, where the challenges vary from year to > year and it is impossible to predict the direction of innovation, this is > essential. Allowing the FCC to enforce on a case-by-case basis can leverage > expertise and create a body of useful precedent, rather than stifling > innovation with unwieldy preemptive regulations. > > Any action in this area will require compromise. The stakes on all sides are > high. For providers, investing in additional capacity is costly, and the > flexibility to shape traffic is a prized commodity; for Internet users, > having equal ease of access to all content has been perceived as a basic > right. The Obama administration has long been committed to the cause of net > neutrality, but any government espousal of this principle needs to be > carefully tailored. > > The FCC stands poised to reclassify broadband service providers as content > carriers, a category that would subject them to the same sort of regulation > that telephone companies are saddled with, even giving the FCC the ability to > set rates. The agency's chairman says that the FCC won't use this power -- > but this could change in another administration. Such a move would be a > serious step backward. > > A better route would be legislative enactment of something like the > Google-Verizon plan, with an emphasis on transparency about decisions that > providers are making. Giving the FCC the authority to nudge things in the > right direction will be a good first step. As the Internet evolves, the > nature of needed oversight will evolve as well. Establishing a clearly > limited power to take action against anti-competitive violations, rather than > encumbering this vital sector with detailed and prescriptive regulation, is > the sensible approach. > > Link Hoewing > Vice President > Internet and Technology Policy > Verizon > 1300 I Street, NW > Washington, DC 20005 > 202-515-2420 > ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=125750&id_secret=125750-5bb6cf56 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=125750&id_secret=125750-6876700a Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ----- End forwarded message -----
