App Providers Will Win, ISPs Won't Lose Big Under Future FCC Net Neutrality Rules

By Gary Kim July 17, 2014

No rules are better than these rules, Netflix argues in its filing on proposed Federal Communications Commission network neutrality rules, reiterating a call for Title II regulation, which would be a historic and major change of framework.

AT&T has argued recently that Title II rules are unnecessary and would, in any case, not prevent practices network neutrality supporters oppose.

Title II common carrier regulation represent the polar opposite positions in the present network neutrality rulemaking.  

One might argue the FCC has asked for public input on reclassifying broadband access a common carrier service for a mix of reasons. There is a legitimate question about how the Internet access function should be regulated.

On the other hand, there are “political reasons” as well, one might argue. By enlarging the possible scope of outcomes, the FCC preserves more room for compromise “in the middle” of the debate.

Though Netflix wants common carrier regulation, the major Internet service providers will oppose it. That leaves room for a compromise that maintains “best effort” access as the consumer service pattern, barring packet prioritization schemes.

Treatment of mobile Internet access is an outstanding issue, but perhaps the major point is the FCC has political room to move towards a compromise by declining to shift Internet access regulation to a common carrier format, but maintaining what Google might call a “light touch” approach that maintains the “best effort only” framework for consumer Internet access.

As always, the public positions stake out negotiating positions, in addition to reflecting the perceived business interests of Internet participants. ISPs really oppose common carrier regulation.

And though Netflix might prefer common carrier regulation, it would obviously be happy if the former “no quality of experience” mechanisms, was the future framework.

In other words, the threat of dire action makes acceptance of “no packet prioritization” policies more palatable to ISPs, while achieving what many net neutrality supporters still prefer.

That provides political cover for the FCC to craft rules that preserve its approach to net neutrality.

By essentially moving the goalposts further apart (common carrier regulation on one hand and no effective best effort access rules on the other), the FCC will ultimately have more room to craft a compromise that leaves both sides with something they can live with.




Edited by Maurice Nagle

Contributing Editor

SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Related Articles

6 Challenges of 5G, and the 9 Pillars of Assurance Strategy

By: Special Guest    9/17/2018

To make 5G possible, everything will change. The 5G network will involve new antennas and chipsets, new architectures, new KPIs, new vendors, cloud di…

Read More

Putting the Flow into Workflow, Paessler and Briefery Help Businesses Operate Better

By: Cynthia S. Artin    9/14/2018

The digital transformation of business is generating a lot of value, through more automation, more intelligence, and ultimately more efficiency.

Read More

From Mainframe to Open Frameworks, Linux Foundation Fuels Up with Rocket Software

By: Special Guest    9/6/2018

Last week, at the Open Source Summit, hosted by The Linux Foundation, the Open Mainframe Project gave birth to Zowe, introduced a new open source soft…

Read More

Unified Office Takes a Trip to the Dentist Office

By: Cynthia S. Artin    9/6/2018

Not many of us love going to see the dentist, and one company working across unified voice, productivity and even IoT systems is out to make the exper…

Read More

AIOps Outfit Moogsoft Launches Observe

By: Paula Bernier    8/30/2018

Moogsoft Observe advances the capabilities of AIOps to help IT teams better manage their services and applications in the face of a massive proliferat…

Read More