Court’s FCC-Comcast Ruling Regarding The Internet Is a Shift From Neutral Into Reverse
Some good insight by John Murrell from Good Morning Silicon Valley on the ramifications of the recent court ruling regarding Net Neutrality in the FCC-Comcast case…
So a federal appeals court has now ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to represent the public’s interests in the provision and management of Internet access. Comcast, the object of the FCC’s attempt at regulation (see “ FCC to Comcast: Go forth and sin no more “), and its fellow giant ISPs are toasting the decision, as are those who have an absolute faith in the ability of market forces, if left alone, to solve any problem. And that would be nice, if only there weren’t so many examples to the contrary.
The ultimate responsibility of a business is to follow the Prime Directive: maximize profit and shareholder value. A lot of times, that priority happily happens to coincide with our interests, when companies try to figure out what we need, compete to fill that need, and create jobs and wealth in the process. In theory, the Prime Directive keeps companies from acting against the public interest because it would cost them customers. In practice … well, that’s why we have regulatory agencies — because when push comes to shove, the Prime Directive trumps the broader public interest every time. And that’s why it’s untenable in the long run to have the nation’s communications regulators unable to have any say in the nation’s most dynamic and empowering communications medium.
When it comes to Internet access, the market’s system of checks and balances is out of whack. The industry is dominated by a few big companies, exempt from great masses of communications regulations, with their own financial interests in content as well as access, and sitting at the choke points of what is now an essential utility. Under the Prime Directive, if they can make more money by offering preferred treatment to their partners or by subverting the delivery of other traffic, who’s to stop them. Normally, the fear of losing customers would accomplish this, but in much of the country, there’s little choice when it comes to broadband providers and service is too important to do without. And while watchdog groups can expose bad behavior, they have no teeth. So if customers, competition and public scrutiny can’t keep the big ISPs honest, that leaves the responsibility with the government.
For more on this very important issue, visit Savetheinternet.com
on April 13th, 2010 at 4:12 am
I personally agree with the DC court. I believe less FCC regulation of Internet service providers is a good thing. The government attempting to regulate and police the the Internet would be a fiasco IMHO. Newer and faster technology advances will increasingly provide more consumer options for obtaining high speed Internet access. Informed consumers and free market competition will force broadband ISP’s to offer better services for competitive prices least they lose the customer to the competition that does.
on April 13th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
“The government attempting to regulate and police the Internet would be a fiasco”
Net neutrality has nothing whatsoever to do with the government “policing” the internet.
Another straw man argument from someone who is either terribly naive about the wonders of the “market,” or else is one of those paid apparatchiks of the telco astroturf organizations created to swamp the public discourse with a blizzard of misinformation.
More here…
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf_blogging
Unfortunately, based on previous experience, I would tend to guess to the latter option.
All this about keeping the government from limiting “competition” is simply contravened by facts on the ground, when the number of ISPs who can compete for your business has dwindled to near handfuls from the early days of internet services, most of which have been wiped out by the few huge conglomerates who leverage their size and position in order to dominate internet operations.
If you want the internet to operate like cable TV services, than oppose net neutrality. If you want it to continue to operate along the lines that is has developed under, then support it. It’s the simplest way one can describe an admittedly complicated situation (of which USTV Media is repository of ample info and discussion on which you can find throughout our “Media and Democracy” section).