 |
 |
 |
|
03.26.10 Compromising With ISPs Regarding Net Neutrality  By John VinsonFor staunch supporters of net neutrality, they're keeping a close eye on the FCC's broadband plan. If executed, there would be a massive shift in the way internet is provided in the US. There are many who believe ISPs have no right to discriminate against content, and shouldn't be allowed to prioritize traffic. On the other side of the fence, there's of course the ISPs who nearly disagree with every view of net neutrality supporters.Randolph J. May has proposed a compromise which could leave both parties satisfied, or at least feel as though their concerns are being addressed. You might be asking - 'Who's Randolph May, and why does his opinion matter?' Mr. May is the current president of theFree State Foundation. From 1978-1981, May served as the Associate General Counsel for the FFC. Along with his appointments, he has a long history practicing communication and administrative law. Suffice to say, he knows what he's talking about. If you're reading this and you're a strong supporter of net neutrality, you might wonder why a compromise is needed. Content should be readily available to everyone, and ISPs should stay out of the way. According to May, that ideal isn't practical and could have dire consequences. Applying heavy regulation to discrimination, and price has the potential to dilute the market and lower its quality. If ISPs are handcuffed by regulation, then evolution and investments could slow to a crawl. An even bigger problem would be the potential for the FCC's regulation to infringe on the First Amendment. By telling ISPs what they can or can't do with content they provide access to, issues surrounding free speech are viable. May's compromise to the situation is to use anti-trust law to handle ISP abuses on a case-to-case basis. Allowing for the market to correct it's problems; if one ISP is treating it's customers poorly, then the market would naturally shift to another ISP. Instead of instituting broad, heavy handed regulation, the FCC could apply rules specific to internet content for anti-competition situations. According to May, his plan would keep problems regarding the First Amendment from popping up. It would also allow for natural competition to flow, and to keep improvements from being stymied. On the flip side, the FCC could regulate more efficiently using anti-trust as a tool for addressing allegations. There are those who would read May's compromise and simply dismiss it, which is fine. However, it's hard to ignore the points he brings up with broad regulations. Especially if ISPs would take their cases to court and win, which would then negate all the hard work that went into solving the problem in the first place. About the Author: John is a staff writer for WebProNews. |
|
| ||
| -- ISPproNews is an iEntry, Inc. publication -- iEntry, Inc. 2549 Richmond Rd. Lexington KY, 40509 2010 iEntry, Inc. All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy | Legal | Contact archives | advertising info | news headlines | free newsletters | comments/feedback | submit article |
