Washington Post Comes Out Against Internet Reclassification
Today, the Washington Post has come out against the FCC’s Internet reclassification proposal in an editorial entitled, “How the FCC can best regulate the Internet.” The Post instead points toward the net neutrality compromise offered by Verizon and Google as a guide for moving forward in a way that does not stifle innovation or investment from the private sector. Here are some highlights from the editorial:
“[T]he proposal includes many good elements -- especially its designation of the FCC as an adjudicatory body such as the Federal Trade Commission rather than one with intrusive regulatory authority. In a realm as complex and evolving as the Internet, where the challenges vary from year to year and it is impossible to predict the direction of innovation, this is essential. Allowing the FCC to enforce on a case-by-case basis can leverage expertise and create a body of useful precedent, rather than stifling innovation with unwieldy preemptive regulations.”
“The FCC stands poised to reclassify broadband service providers as content carriers, a category that would subject them to the same sort of regulation that telephone companies are saddled with, even giving the FCC the ability to set rates. The agency's chairman says that the FCC won't use this power -- but this could change in another administration. Such a move would be a serious step backward.”
“A better route would be legislative enactment of something like the Google-Verizon plan, with an emphasis on transparency about decisions that providers are making. Giving the FCC the authority to nudge things in the right direction will be a good first step. As the Internet evolves, the nature of needed oversight will evolve as well. Establishing a clearly limited power to take action against anti-competitive violations, rather than encumbering this vital sector with detailed and prescriptive regulation, is the sensible approach.”
Read the full Washington Post editorial here.



So Where is BBA on Net Neutrality?
I have seen your advertisements and appreciate the sentiment of Broadband for all. it is unclear however where this coalition truly stands on the issue of Net neutrality. I am all for private enterprises receiving a reasonable rate of return on their investments, and government policy should encourage private investment and reasonable returns. However, not at the sacrifice of internet providers limiting access to certain websites, based on their sole discretion, especially given how difficult it would be for a user to change carriers - we often sign multi-year contracts for service (especially in multi-family dwellings) making it expensive if not impossible to change carriers, and we also often have our e-mail address tied to the carrier.
If carriers want to be able to "regulate" what sites its customers go to, then they must also adopt policies that allow customers to change their carrier, and have "e-mail address portability" similar to what the cellular carriers had to adopt. Or protect customers rights to obtain information in a free environment without restriction from carriers.
Post new comment