What is Best Route to Net Neutrality?

By Justin Silverman

The idea of Net Neutrality took flight recently, receiving an endorsement by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC proposed new regulations that would preserve the Internet as we now know it, though there may be alternatives the commission should further consider.

Net Neutrality is the idea that website content is sent to your computer at the same speed, regardless of who owns that website. It’s the system we have now, but one that would change dramatically if Internet Service Providers began charging a premium for faster service. That would mean wealthy companies such as Amazon.com, for example, could pay to have its content sent to your computer faster than a mom-and-pop bookstore which can’t afford the premium. The fear is that rather than waiting for the latter site to load, a book buyer will just visit Amazon instead. Under the principle of Net Neutrality, the current way we use the web would prevail and, as the theory goes, so would the democratic nature of the Internet.

Sounds like a noble cause, right? It is. The beauty of conversing online is that no matter what’s being discussed or sold, we all have the ability to access those ideas or products immediately. There’s no discrimination being exercised other than that of those listening or buying. Justifying his plan this week to preserve this neutrality, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski described the Internet as a “blank canvas” that has inspired “innovation and ubiquitous entrepreneurship.” It’s an amazing thing, this Internet, and preventing broadband networks from discriminating would keep it that way.

But is simply prohibiting ISPs from discriminating the best route or is it a lazy means to an end? Sure, the FCC’s proposed regulations would likely keep information flowing online and preserve the Internet as it is now structured. Yet there may be other ways to maintain neutrality while creating a more robust marketplace for consumers.

Consider the steps Japan took to create an infrastructure that provides broadband service 30 times faster than what’s offered in the United States. Rather than just telling the private sector to refrain from a certain activity, maybe the government should provide incentives to engage in a more productive one: Build a bigger, better infrastructure, one that provides so much bandwidth, speed is no longer a concern or a commodity for which website operators can pay. The result would be the Net Neutrality the FCC intends to protect, better products and service for consumers and with the ability to deliver better content faster, more consumers. Considering the size of Japan relative to the United States, it’ll take more time and money to create a comparable infrastructure. But with several billion dollars of the latest federal stimulus designated to broadband development, the political will may be there.

We are lagging behind as it is and the payoff of such an initiative could be enormous. Consider this data from a 2008 report by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington D.C. think-tank:

• The U.S. ranks 15th among developed countries in broadband access.
• New broadband technologies? Only 3 percent of U.S. connections are fiber optic, compared to 35 percent in Japan.
• Speed? The average connection in the United States is only 1.9 megabits per second, the fastest being 5 megabits per second. Download speeds in Japan are hitting 61 megabits per second.

If a massive upgrade of our infrastructure isn’t feasible, David Weinberger of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society has other ideas:

“We could require access providers to open up their lines to other companies at profitable wholesale rates. Users would benefit from a newly competitive market. Or, we could legally separate those who provide access from those who provide content and services. If you want to be in the Internet access business, you’d compete on bandwidth, price and support. If you want to sell movies or search services or new ideas we haven’t yet invented, you could do so in the open market of the Net. Either way would reduce the temptation to sell preferential treatment of bits.”

No matter how it is accomplished, Net Neutrality should be the end-game. Though I’m usually inclined to let free markets work these issues out on their own, Internet access is such a substantial concern it would be difficult for me to argue the government should not intervene. How it intervenes, however, could have implications far more valuable to the public than a simple mandate to the broadband industry.