Verizon vs. FCC: Net NeutralityVerizon vs. FCC: Net Neutrality

Verizon's challenge to Net Neutrality goes to trial, and early signs don't look good.

Two rules set by the FCC for the Internet are coming under fire: No blocking of websites even if those sites compete with an Internet Service Provider's (ISP); and the discouragement of creating fast lanes where the ISP could charge companies like Netflix more for rapid delivery of their content. Now this issue of Net Neutrality is having its day in court.

The Verizon Case
Verizon has a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, contesting the legal case for the FCC to create and enforce these rules. ISPs led by Verizon want to get themselves out from under these regulations that force them to treat everyone on the Internet equally--i.e., Net Neutrality. On the side of the FCC are Internet companies like Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.

So far the initial oral arguments before the three judges do not look promising for the FCC position. The Verizon argument is that the rules are old in concept, harkening back to the common carrier rules of the last century. And indeed, the law creating the FCC is not clear as to its authority over broadband services, which obviously didn't exist when the FCC was created in 1934.

The existing rules, according to Verizon, discourage Internet investment. I'm skeptical of this argument--broadband services are becoming a substantial revenue source.

What if the Rules Change?
Critics warn that a ruling in the ISPs'/carriers' favor would increase user costs, be they consumers or websites, producing a hard-to-understand set of pricing structures. It would allow ISPs to refuse access or limit the delivery quality for streaming video, sports sites, social networks, and even medical services. Higher Internet fees could easily restrict web startups because of the costs they would incur.

No matter what the outcome, the judges' decisions will not be finalized for a least a few months. If they rule in favor of Verizon, Net Neutrality could only remain in force via an act of Congress to retain the current rules--an unlikely prospect.

Some of those observing this case speculate that the court might weaken some portion of the rules. There could also be a divided decision--for example, the rules preventing website blocking may be upheld, while the rules might be changed such that ISPs can create fast lanes and thereby increase their revenue.

Mockumentary on the Future Internet
On a lighter note, check out, "The Internet Must Go", a 30-minute satire that presents the story of a market researcher, John Woolley, who is depicted as having been hired to help Internet Service Providers (ISP) sell their vision of a better Internet that produces more revenue for them. He starts his quest with optimistic eyes. We learn from the video that he believes that he is performing a great service. During his quest, he encounters some brilliant people. Each of these people teaches him that the goal of his mission is really misguided.

He then travels to North Carolina where he interviews people who live in communities that do not have broadband service. They have attempted to build community broadband, but North Carolina has barriers to such projects. (I wonder who pushed that legislation.) Interacting with the communities, the character changes his views about the benefits and values of the ISPs' drive to change the Internet rules. Ultimately he has a change of heart.

I have previously blogged on the subject: A Partial Win for Net Neutrality, Net Neutrality Collision Course: U.S. and Europe?, and Quick Review of Net Neutrality Challenges.