Where is the Greatest Threat to Internet Openness?

By

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

Coding and Invention Made Fun

By: Special Guest    10/12/2018

SAM is a series of kits that integrates hardware and software with the Internet. Combining wireless building blocks composed of sensors and actors con…

Read More

Facebook Marketplace Now Leverages AI

By: Paula Bernier    10/3/2018

Artificial intelligence is changing the way businesses interact with customers. Facebook's announcement this week is just another example of how this …

Read More

Oct. 17 Webinar to Address Apache Spark Benefits, Tools

By: Paula Bernier    10/2/2018

In the upcoming webinar "Apache Spark: The New Enterprise Backbone for ETL, Batch and Real-time Streaming," industry experts will offer details on clo…

Read More

It's Black and White: Cybercriminals Are Spending 10x More Than Enterprises to Control, Disrupt and Steal

By: Cynthia S. Artin    9/26/2018

In a stunning new report by Carbon Black, "Hacking, Escalating Attacks and The Role of Threat Hunting" the company revealed that 92% of UK companies s…

Read More

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