A federal appeals court decision last week limiting the Federal Communications Commission’s ability to regulate broadband providers isn’t the death knell of Internet freedom some have painted it to be.
On the contrary, the court merely said the FCC’s approach wasn’t grounded in law, and the decision did not preclude other avenues the FCC could employ to regulate Internet service providers.
However, we hope the FCC isn’t tempted to go overboard and seek broad new powers from Congress, or reclassify Internet providers to a service category that it can heavily regulate.
We think a middle-ground approach, which allows the market to shape pricing and management practices of Internet service providers, will best serve consumers and Internet entrepreneurs.
So long as Internet service providers are open with their customers about their traffic management policies, customers can make informed decisions about whom they want to buy Internet service from.
At issue in this case was a dispute between Comcast Corp. and customers who were using BitTorrent to engage in large file sharing. That kind of Internet activity takes a lot of space on the service provider’s system, and Comcast was delaying the transmission so its system wouldn’t get overloaded, slowing traffic for other users.
The FCC called that discrimination, saying service providers ought not to be able to block or slow lawful traffic over their networks or pick winners by favoring some content providers over others.
The implication, as we see it, of that FCC position is that Internet service providers, which have invested huge sums of money in building an Internet system of delivery “pipes,” had no authority to control how that system is used.
It would make the system, in essence, an all-you-can-eat buffet, open to abuse by customers with big appetites who could monopolize the buffet table at key, high-demand times. That’s hardly fair, either, and companies should continue exploring tiered pricing structures that charge big users more.
We do not, however, entirely dismiss concerns that some may have about a relatively small number of Internet service providers having the power to control access to the Web. But we think the threat of regulation should help in that regard. Providers surely know they’ll face action from either the FCC or Congress, or both, if they begin to capriciously favor certain Internet users over others.
They also should know that any attempt to better themselves at the expense of competitors could prompt regulation.
If, for instance, Internet service providers are seen as limiting system access to rivals who deliver movies via the Internet, those actions will make a case for regulation.
It is in the best interests of Internet service providers to act responsibly so they don’t give the FCC justification to regulate this invaluable platform for commerce and creativity.
