Net Neutrality Part V

From Arstechnica:

Amazon exec: net neutrality necessary because of "little choice" for consumers

The two largest telecoms in the US are proponents of a tiered Internet, in which an ISP would have carte blanche give priority to certain traffic at the expense of the rest. Joining consumers on the other side of the debate are companies that rely heavily or exclusively on the Internet for their revenue streams, like Google, Yahoo, and Amazon. In an interview, Amazon VP of Global Public Policy Paul Misener reinforces one of the reasons why we need net neutrality: our (lack of) choice when it comes to broadband.

For the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has enforced a view of broadband regulation that emphasizes competition between types of broadband while effectively ruling out meaningful competition within broadband delivery methods. Hence the ruling that cable companies and DSL providers need not lease their lines to competing ISPs if they don't want to (and why would they?).

By the FCC's reckoning, that means I have broadband choice here on the northwest side of Chicago. Well, sort of. For cable, my sole choice is Comcast-and that's what I use, with few service complaints. On the other hand, DSL is not an option for me because of the lousy infrastructure in my over 80-year-old neighborhood and my distance from the DSLAM. Broadband over power lines? Not yet. Citywide WiFi network? A gleam in Mayor Daley's eye. WiMAX? Some day, maybe. Broadband choice? Not in any coherent sense of the word.

In Misener's opinion, the lack of choice means net neutrality is a must because if an ISP decides to begin prioritizing certain traffic, consumers don't have a meaningful alternative.

"[U]ltimately what can they do besides complain? Consumers have little choice when it comes to high speed Internet. If they had more choices of providers, this wouldn't be such a dangerous situation."

There are a number of other arguments for net neutrality, including the possibility of ISPs clamping down on traffic that they find objectionable. Misener outlines one such scenario involving a striking union and points out that while such scenarios may seem far fetched, there are no laws in place to prevent it from happening.

With the latest attempt at legislating net neutrality into law having failed, does the issue still has life on Capitol Hill? Misener was encouraged that support for net neutrality grew between votes on the issue. One thing that would help out in the nation's capital is some lobbying by the tech giants that have a lot to lose if a tiered Internet shows up. Yahoo, Google, AOL, Amazon, and their allies were severely outspent by lobbyists for the telecoms and cable companies during the last battle, and that is going to have to change. Beyond Washington D.C., awareness of the issue appear to be rising on Wall Street, as other industries begin to ponder the ramifications of a tiered Internet.