Where is the Greatest Threat to Internet Openness?

By Gary Kim July 28, 2014

Regulatory attorneys are always required to advance the strongest-possible arguments in favor of their firm’s or client’s interests, when the Federal Communications Commission or any other regulatory body is considering new rules.

So it is not surprising that Time Warner Cable’s filing with the FCC regarding notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the “Open Internet” opposes Title II regulation of access services, argues that fixed and mobile ISPs should be subject to the same rules, or argues network interconnection should not be included in the rules.

Cable companies traditionally have opposed common carrier regulation. And as a competitive issue, cable companies would not want mobile ISPs to have an edge. Time Warner Cable (TWC) also opposes extension of new regulations for network interconnection, which traditionally has been a matter of business relationships between network owners.

The novel idea is TWC’s suggestion that all potential threats to openness in the ecosystem be examined, including the role of large content or app providers who also could threaten openness.

“The NPRM fails to acknowledge that the real — and growing — threat to Internet openness continues to be posed by entities other than broadband Internet access providers,” TWC argues.

Time Warner Cable’s suggestions are unlikely to have any effect, as the language of the NPRM already notes that although “other forms of discrimination in the Internet ecosystem may exist … such conduct is beyond the scope of this proceeding.”

Some might find the Time Warner Cable suggestion unusual. But it is the sort of perspective one might expect from a provider of third-party content, accustomed to fierce negotiations with those partners.

“Several large-edge providers have not only the ability to restrict access to online content and services, but also troubling track records of doing so,” TWC argues.

What Time Warner Cable might be suggesting is that large app and content providers have as much “incentive” to restrict “openness” for commercial advantage.

“The NPRM overlooks the reality that large-edge providers often have far more market leverage than a broadband ISP. There is no sound reason to single out broadband Internet access providers and exclude other sources of harm from the scope of any rules,” TWC argues.




Edited by Rory J. Thompson

Contributing Editor

SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Related Articles

Get Smart About Influencer Attribution in a Blockchain World

By: Maurice Nagle    4/16/2018

The retail value chain is in for a blockchain-enabled overhaul, with smarter relationships, delivering enhanced transparency across an environment of …

Read More

Facebook Flip-Flopping on GDPR

By: Maurice Nagle    4/12/2018

With GDPR on the horizon, Zuckerberg in Congress testifying and Facebook users questioning loyalty, change is coming. What that change will look like,…

Read More

The Next Phase of Flash Storage and the Mid-Sized Business

By: Joanna Fanuko    4/11/2018

Organizations amass profuse amounts of data these days, ranging from website traffic metrics to online customer surveys. Collectively, AI, IoT and eve…

Read More

Satellite Imaging - Petabytes of Developer, Business Opportunities

By: Doug Mohney    4/11/2018

Hollywood has programmed society into believing satellite imaging as a magic, all-seeing tool, but the real trick is in analysis. Numerous firms are f…

Read More

Blockchain in Space

By: Doug Mohney    4/10/2018

The fact is that everyone is putting a special spin upon blockchain this minute. Given that, it's no surprise a number of companies are discussing dis…

Read More