April 06, 2010

Network Neutrality Developments...

Mere weeks after the FCC announced its plans to enhance and extend Americans’ broadband access to the Internet, the question of the FCC’s authority to police broadband Internet providers has become yet muddier. A Federal Appeals Court ruled on April 6, 2010 that the FCC exceeded its authority when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for deliberately slowing Internet traffic for some users.

The FCC’s plan, unveiled on March 15, 2010, is intended, in short, to realize the Administration’s National Broadband Agenda: 100 million U.S. homes with 100 million megabytes per second connections; U.S. leadership in mobile innovation; consumer choice of broadband provider; one gigabyte per second community-wide access for schools, hospitals and government buildings; ubiquitous first responder wireless broadband - and all with "green" tech in mind... As the Court’s ruling highlights, the FCC’s authority to regulate “information services” in addition to “telecommunications services” is unclear at best.

This debate is not a new one (I mean, really, just see the list of posts I've made on the topic as featured in my March 11 review), indeed, it has raged for the better part of a decade under the Network Neutrality banner, and in the context of the last sweeping overhaul of the FCC’s regulatory authority – The Telecommunications Act of 1996. That Act was years in the making, well beyond a decade in implementation, and, moreover, conceived in the days predating the commercial Internet. The Act’s application to today’s broadband reality is an ill-fit at best, as has been oft noted by critics over the last decade, and, more recently, in the wake of the FCC’s recent initiative.

The Court's ruling will likely bolster recent broadband provider initiatives (as led by Verizon) for Congressional review and overhaul of the communications regulatory environment – a very lengthy process. Indeed, Proposing Congressional renew of the nation’s communications policy framework should not be done lightly. While such suggestions are well-intended, another decade spent formulating policy, legislation and adjusting regulatory authority will likely result in a product which is as ill-fit for 2020 as the Act of 1996 is today.

The Court’s decision will also likely renew Congressional debate and Administration championship of repeatedly introduced bills to grant the FCC the “official” extension of its traditional telecommunications authority to cover broadband and information service providers.

And, in the interim, and in the wake of the Administration’s recent victory on health care reform, the Administration may well simply endorse the FCC flexing its muscle and exercising yesterday’s authority to police today’s broadband Internet and information service providers, in anticipation of further debate in the Courts as FCC actions are challenged.

2 comments:

Keith said...

The goal for government buildings to have better access than the rest of the population conjures up images (at least in my mind) of the old days of the Soviet Union where special traffic lanes were set aside only for the use of government officials and other party bureaucrats. Different kind of highway perhaps - but the same mentality in play...

Bill Plummer said...

...i don't think the intent is "better" access, rather, to perhaps enable government to actually keep technology pace with the outside world... that said, i share your cynicism (to some extent), but less about government favoring itself and more about government's ability to execute to its intent...