Net Neutrality: Shades of Gray

To many, the net neutrality debate may seem black and white: freedom versus greed. Like most things in life I believe there are many shades of gray.

I do not believe that the telecoms want to end freedom. They fear that if the FCC reclassifies broadband as a telecommunications service, they may required to share their infrastructure with competitors in the future. Telecoms are trying to ensure their future by protecting their investments.

On the other hand, I do not believe that the FCC wants to stifle innovation. They want to have enough regulatory power in order to serve and protect consumers by keeping the Internet free of biases and by implementing their National Broadband Plan, which will expand affordable broadband service to even the most remote areas of the US. In order to accomplish this mission, the FCC believes they need minimum regulatory power to prevent ISPs from slowing down or blocking network traffic for financial gain if that should ever happen.

There are legal parameters and marketing principles about this issue (and maybe even technology aspects) that I don't fully understand. However, I tend to agree with the “light-touch” regulatory approach proposed by the FCC. Broadband would be classified as a telecommunications service, but only the provisions needed to protect consumers would be invoked. This would ensure that companies who provide the backbone of the Internet, an essential component of 21st century life, wouldn't be allowed to route the flow of information in their favor. If the telecoms want to create their own awesome search engines and awesome marketplaces, then they should do it by the same rules as everyone else.