Well-Regulated Marketplace Should Shape the Internet

Nothing really is neutral about "net neutrality," the tug-of-war over who gets to be gatekeeper and toll collector to the Internet.

Big cable, wireless and traditional telecommunications companies are in one corner. They own the networks and invested billions of dollars to build them. They want the freedom to manage them as they see fit — without government oversight.

That could include creating a two-tier pipeline — with priority given to customers that pay more.

In the other corner are large commercial content providers loosely aligned with Internet giant Google. They want room to innovate but seek regulations to preserve open access to the Internet. The worry that telecom providers will play favorites.

The debate has attracted unaffiliated but influential advocates, observers and commentators that the 'net has enabled, all of whom profess to champion the cause of smaller interests and ordinary consumers.

In a still-young digital age, the outcome matters to everyone.

The Federal Communications Commission last fall proposed rules that concern "preserving the open Internet" and "broadband industry practices." The FCC invited public comment.

In 2005, the FCC adopted the general principle of "net neutrality" — the idea that everyone's data on the Internet should be moved without favoritism or regard to content, destination or source. The FCC rules governing net neutrality are the product of broad consensus, although practical interpretations vary widely. The key tenets are that consumers and entrepreneurs have:

Access to "the lawful Internet content of their choice."

The ability to "run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."

The ability to "connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network."

Access to the benefits of "competition among network providers, application and service providers and content providers."

The FCC now seeks to codify these principles into law, and add two more.

One would "require a broadband Internet access service provider to treat lawful content, applications and services in a nondiscriminatory manner." The second would mandate a level of transparency to ensure compliance.

The telecoms argue that the Internet and wireless communications have experienced explosive, competitive growth because regulators kept their noses out of things. Regulation, they say, is a solution in search of a problem — and that a heavy government hand would restrict the telecoms' ability to manage network traffic. It would chill investment when billions of dollars in private capital are needed to expand wireless networks.

Critics complain that telecoms are more focused on profits than innovating or providing high-quality, competitively priced service. They say consumers in Europe and Asia, where Internet providers are more tightly regulated than here, receive cheaper and better-quality broadband service.

Large companies that depend on the Internet are concerned that telecoms will play favorites, limiting consumer access and using their stranglehold to extract undeserved fees.

The vigorous give and take can guide the FCC toward balanced Internet governance, rewarding innovation and investment, preventing market abuses and permitting consumers the fullest and most affordable access.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM