The difficult bargain of net neutrality
National Journal's Insider Update reports today that Amazon, eBay, Google, Yahoo!, and others are working on inserting “net neutrality” provisions into any updated Telecommunications Act.
The principles preliminarily adopted by the FCC in August didn't give us much reason to hope that incumbent telcos and cablecos would ever allow true “net neutrality” to be written into law. True net neutrality would simply say: don't discriminate against any application; allow any device to attach to your network; disclose upload/download speeds and the scope of the “internet” to which you're providing access; don't evade any of the foregoing principles through your EULA. No caveats, no hedging, no surprises.
(By the way, where are the many orders and final principles promised us on that hectic early August day? Is it possible that the Commission is worrying about its legal arguments?)
The key problem, as the National Journal article points out, is that in order to require “net neutrality” you have to make explicit rules about bit carriage by private networks. From the telcos' perspective, “net neutrality” is “You can't put the kind of radio you want in the car you're building. You have to allow any kind of radio to be put into that car.”
Sen. Sununu, reportedly the most clued-in Senator we have, is dubitante. He's been convinced that people won't use networks that discriminate. I'm not so sure that's true, only because the choices of access providers are so few and consumers' expectations are so easily dampened. It's hard to vote with your feet when there's nowhere to go.
It's a hard problem. Asking for statutory “net neutrality” means that we'll end up with language in some queasy middle of the issue. It puts the Commission in the position of arbiter of non-discrimination. And it doesn't fit with the overall deregulatory, pro-competition stance of the current Congress. On a meta level, the compromises required to squeeze “net neutrality” into words won't fit the idea of the original open internet.
Not having statutory “net neutrality” puts all higher-level net functions at the mercy of network providers who have every incentive to monetize every transaction that uses their infrastructure.
Can't we be bolder? Can't we change the facts on the ground? Why are we stuck with only these variables? Why can't we treat internet access like a subsidized utility? If that's a bad idea, could discussing it lead to better ideas?
=====
As I walked by my polling place this evening, a guy tried to hand me a leaflet. I waved him off (politely), saying I'd already voted. He said: “You could use it as a coaster or something.” He'd had a long day. I assured him that I had voted for the leafletted person — we cheered — I went on.