The FCC debate - wearing the wrong trousers?
- Summary:
- I wonder whether all the talk about net neutrality is missing the point. Isn't this about infrastructure first?
On Thursday, the FCC commissioners voted 3-2 to approve a framework for net neutrality rules that continue to favor the creation of an internet fast lane while exploring a line of inquiry into the idea of reclassifying broadband as a public utility. So, while the Federal Communications Commission has taken the protesters outside their offices to heart and adjusted the focus of its net neutrality rules a bit, the fate of the internet is still up in the air.
The fact this was a close call in the vote suggests one of many things. It is perfectly possible for instance that the FCC doesn't have a full grasp of the situation. It wouldn't be the first time that accusation has been thrown.
But beyond the headlines around whether Netflox has to pay an extra tax to deliver high speed video, the enlarged debate seems to open up another can of worms. The ability of providers to throttle, or rather displace wireless users onto slower networks. As Higginbottom says:
The rules around discrimination on wireless networks were a bit more lenient, given the challenges of delivering large amounts of content over limited spectrum resources. By including the possibility of bringing wireless further into these rules, we have the debate over wireless discrimination all over again. And this is truly a tough debate because the physics of wireless networks are different from wireline networks.
As I said at the top of this post - the various arguments seem odd when viewed from this distance.
Discrimination is already with us both at national and international levels. When we look down the international league tables for broadband access and speed it is amazing to note that some of the smallest and perhaps unlikeliest of countries in the world have the most advanced and fastest services available to the vast majority of citizens.
Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania all figure regularly among the fastest places in the world to get a broadband connection. The US? It still cannot crack the top 10 position.
It's curious but some of the so-called most advanced countries in the world still don't offer anything like fast (as measured by the best) or well distributed access. When viewed from that standpoint, you can argue that the current debate is merely a reflection of an ongoing problem that isn't going away. Just how do you provide economically viable net neutral access in a country where there is intense concentration of populations and vast spaces of near emptiness? That's a problem for the operators, not the regulators.
It's not a US only problem. The UK, France and Spain (to mention just a few) in Europe have a similar problem in the sense that the distribution of high quality internet access is incredibly lumpy.
It is not so long ago that one client told me they would need to move offices in order to take advantage of cloud apps. In Spain, there is much talk of fiber - but only as long as you live in a tiny enclave of Madrid or Barcelona. Claimed up and download speeds are a joke often bearing no relation to reality while the telcos are constantly pushing consumers onto wireless and then capping usage but with no clear guidelines to help consumers choose the right plans.
And in that sense I wonder whether all the arguments are deflecting away from the real needs of people and not just the economic interests of the providers. Hence why I sense the debate is one where the protagonists are wearing the wrong trousers.
Even so, many eyes will be watching to see how this shakes out. There can be little doubt that the outcome will shape the extent to which the US remains a strong competitor on the global stage. That is already a central part of the observations being made by commercial interests and interested parties.
Quoting investor Bijan Sabet , the Verge's Adi Robertson notes that:
I'm in shock the FCC would favor special interest groups over an open internet that does not discriminate over the bits that flow over the network. It's simply unacceptable to allow a few large corporations the ability to control content, media and information. An open internet has contributed to free speech, new ideas, fast growing important companies and more jobs. Why on earth would we want to ruin that?
And despite the claims of predatory practice, Verizon's Randal Molch weighs in with:
Verizon has long been committed to an open Internet for a simple reason: Our customers demand it. This was true before the FCC ever considered putting rules in place, and serving our customers will ensure our commitment to an open Internet regardless of what the FCC does in the future ... We look forward to reviewing the FCC's proposal, and we will be constructively engaged in the months to come. But one thing is clear: For the FCC to impose 1930s utility regulation on the Internet would lead to years of legal and regulatory uncertainty and would jeopardize investment and innovation in broadband.
Quite.
Image credits: Fotolia and The Verge