Cogito Ergo Non Serviam

FCC Backs Net Neutrality

Yesterday, on a party-line vote of 3-2, the Federal Communications Commission decided to back the idea of net neutrality. What that means is that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must treat all data the same; they may not create a "fast-lane" for favored customers who pay more to move their data at higher speeds. The three commissioners appointed by Democrats voted for neutrality, while the two Republican appointed commissioners voted against it. Supporters are claiming a huge victory for the little guy, while opponents say it's government over-reach that will destroy incentives to innovate. Both are wrong. It's just one more adjudication among huge corporations that can be easily reversed.

First off, the public has yet to see what the rules actually are. The FCC debated the rules in secret and has yet to release the 300 pages of text. The rules must be published in the Federal Register, and then, they enter into force in 60 days' time. In other words, there could easily be sub-sections and provisos in small print that render the neutrality of the Internet less that complete. The fact is neither side knows for certain what has been decided exactly, and in commercial regulation, the devil is in the details.

Second, the media seem to believe that this cannot be undone without resort to an act of Congress or a decision by the Supreme Court. This is completely untrue. The rules were enacted by a simple majority vote of the FCC, and a simple majority vote by the FCC can undo it. Commissioners serve five-years terms, are appointed by the president and are confirmed by the US Senate. The term of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel (a Democratic appointee) ends this year. Ajit Pai (Republican) sees his term end next year. Mignon Clyburn (D) is in office through 2017, Thomas Wheeler (D) through 2018, and Michel O'Reilly (R) in 2019. If the next president is a Republican, there is a fair chance that by 2018, the Republicans will have a majority of commissioners and can reverse this decision.

Third, the proponents of net neutrality have framed this as a David and Goliath situation, with evil corporations that control the backbone of the Internet gouging Grandma who just wants to Skype with her grandchildren. This is nonsense. Those who stand to gain most from net neutrality are those who move huge amounts of data regularly. Streaming music and video services are the big winners. Netflix and Twitter haven't been in the David category for years, and they are the winners here.

Fourth, the opponents of the idea claim this is over-regulation that will stifle innovation. They are, of course, wrong. Back when Al Gore was relevant, the Internet was termed the "information superhighway," and it is just that. It is a road upon which data travel. Roads are public goods; there are no private roads that leave private lands. A road is there for all to use. That means government must regulate it. Moreover, it was government that built the Internet, and in wireless 'net surfing, the publicly owned airwaves are used. Further, because the Internet is involved in interstate commerce, the federal government has jurisdiction over it. It is difficult to see how the FCC could avoid addressing the issue.

In the end, most users will not notice a difference either way. While the rules will likely effect the top and bottom lines of AT&T and Netflix, the average person would hardly notice being slowed down from the speeds currently possible on the Internet. Moreover, innovation in transmission will produce speeds so fast in the next decade that slowing down would still be much faster than things are today. One expects the technology to render the regulation irrelevant in time.

© Copyright 2015 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.



Kensington Review Home