O
n February 26th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted its controversial net neutrality order. The FCC declared that blocking and throttling of internet signals is illegal and it banned “paid prioritization” that would allow one content provider to pay for faster service than its competitors. Noting that more than half of all internet connections are now made from wireless devices, the FCC order extends the new net neutrality rules to wireless internet coverage. The FCC also announced that it would enforce interconnection practices that extend net neutrality principles to the edge of the Internet Service Provider (ISP) networks, the point at which ISPs connect to other networks, content providers and content delivery services. The interconnection rules are not yet published, but will be important to operators of submarine cables and their customers. This is the third net neutrality try for the FCC. Both previous
attempts to adopt regulations have been thrown out by the courts. The net neutrality debate in America has been fierce, with proponents of FCC action claiming that the internet is a public utility and deserves FCC protection. Opponents have proclaimed that any new rules amount to government
takeover of the internet. The battle lines split regulationminded Democrats from small government Republicans; internet content companies favoring regulation squared off against the telecom and cable companies that plan to sue to overturn the rules. The parties, however, are in closer agreement than most will acknowledge.
Everyone appears to support the basic principles of an open internet. Nobody defends blocking or throttling of signals or fast lanes for companies willing to pay. The congressional Republicans have even introduced legislation to make that point. Even Comcast, the ISP most maligned in net neutrality debates, pledges almost daily in full page ads that it will abide by net neutrality principles. Few examples of abuse of net neutrality principles have been shown. So is net neutrality regulation a solution to a problem that does not exist? “Yes,” argue anti-regulation policymakers and ISPs. They point to the growth of the unregulated internet in America and the swirl of innovation around the internet as evidence that the system does not need government involvement. They claim that regulation will stifle investment in the internet, lead to more taxes and even price controls by the government.