Preserving the Brilliance?
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski spoke on net neutrality last month, promising an open and robust internet that would continue to benefit business and individuals, commerce and democracy:
"...we are here because 40 years ago, a bunch of researchers in a lab changed the way computers interact and, as a result, changed the world. We are here because those Internet pioneers had unique insights about the power of open networks to transform lives for the better, and they did something about it. Our work now is to preserve the brilliance of what they contributed to our country and the world."
Freedom to Tinker's David Robinson recently critiqued net neutrality proposals now the works. In addition to the FCC's announcement, Robinson reviewed a legislative proposal by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA).
Promulgating Ambiguity?
Legislation like Markey's could, if written right, solidify the goals of net neutrality more robustly than leaving the process entirely to the FCC. However Robinson writes that as it stands, The Internet Preservation Act of 2009 assumes too much in the way of regulatory authority from the FCC. Secondly it depends on an ill-defined standard of "reasonableness", as reasonableness would be judged by unidentified "interests". For example:
"We are discussing the actions of ISPs, who are generally public companies-- do their interests in profit maximization count as compelling? Shareholders certainly think so. What about their interests in R&D? Or, does the statute mean to single out the public's interest in the general goods outlined in section 12 (a), such as "protect[ing] the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks"?
Robinson calls for clearer language that leaves less ambiguity about what's being proposed. More here.
