Commentary

FCC Chair: Antitrust Is Too Time-Consuming and Expensive For Preserving Neutrality

Earlier this year, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chair of the House Judiciary Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet subcommittee, criticized the Federal Communications Commission for engaging in "mission creep" with its net neutrality order.

While Goodlatte said he was concerned that broadband providers might engage in anti-consumer behavior, he said Congress, not the FCC, should make rules regarding the Internet. What's more, he suggested, any attempt by Internet service providers to violate open Internet principles could be handled under antitrust law.

"Antitrust laws alone would not adequately preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet or provide enough certainty and confidence to drive investment in our innovation future," Genachowski said in his written testimony. "Antitrust enforcement is expensive to pursue, takes a long time, and kicks in only after damage is done. Especially for start-ups in a fast-moving area like the Internet, that's not a practical solution."

The FCC's neutrality order, which passed by a 3-2 vote last December, bans all broadband providers blocking sites or competing applications. The rules also ban wireline providers from engaging in unreasonable discrimination. The regulations contain an exception for reasonable network management practices.

Not surprisingly Commissioner Robert McDowell, who dissented from the order, reiterated his belief that open Internet regulations are unnecessary. "Nothing is broken in the broadband Internet access market that needs fixing," he said in his written testimony. "Sufficient antitrust and consumer protection laws exist to prevent and cure any of the contemplated harms outlined in the order."

The House has already voted to prevent the regulations from going into effect, but that vote was largely symbolic given that the Democratic-controlled Senate isn't likely to enact a similar measure.

Meanwhile, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) attempted to debunk the idea, spread by some GOP members, that neutrality rules mark a government "takeover" of the Internet.

"Net neutrality has been in place since the beginning of the Internet," he said in a speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday.

For instance, he said, "If you buy Rihanna's latest song from iTunes, it downloads as quickly as a song from a friend who has a band in his or her garage. If you send an email to your mother, it arrives in her inbox just as quickly as an email she gets from President Obama."

Franken added that he wasn't a huge fan of the rules that were enacted, which he characterized as a "mediocre compromise" that didn't go far enough. Nonetheless, he said, "The FCC's only goal here is to make sure that the Internet we know and love does not become corrupted and altered by a small number of corporations controlling the last free and open distribution channel we have in this country."

1 comment about "FCC Chair: Antitrust Is Too Time-Consuming and Expensive For Preserving Neutrality ".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Brian Hayashi from ConnectMe 360, May 5, 2011 at 7:53 p.m.

    Sorry, but the FCC Net Neutrality initiative was simply a sloppy attempt at fulfilling a campaign promise.

    While Sen Franken is right that the principles have been out there from Day 1 of the internet, the big question is what does "Net Neutrality" mean? Instead of distilling the concept down to something that everyone could understand, Genachowski opened up the barn doors by keeping it vague and ambiguous. As a result, there is no consensus in Washington DC -- or Silicon Valley, for that matter -- for the definition of Net Neutrality.

    Is Net Neutrality about sticking it to the big guys? Is it about making sure that media companies aren't able to block the presence of other media companies? If the definition was simply "Your video bits shall not take precedence over my video bits", then it would have satisfied the Administration's stated reasons for Net Neutrality. But that's not what the FCC wanted.

    Instead, the FCC tried to sneak in the idea that carriers should be forced to prioritize video bits on the same basis as say, email bits. While it seems like a small difference there are enormous financial and political ramifications given the huge increase in online video use.

    We can all agree that the FCC rules were a mediocre compromise. Next time, let's have a real debate by being clear on the real purpose.

Next story loading loading..