Networks need competition rather than confusing deals

[Commentary] Internet neutrality was always a slippery concept, which may account for the fact that news of a potential deal between two of the biggest opponents on the topic was greeted with confusion on August 5. The notion that a compromise could be reached by Google and Verizon over net neutrality, when their positions had appeared diametrically opposed, is an indication of how hard it is to define what the phrase means. Although the basic principle is clear enough - that telecoms and cable companies should not be allowed to discriminate among Internet services running on their networks - there is plenty of uncertainty about what they should be stopped from doing.

Behind all this, however, is a larger problem - the inadequate state of competition between Internet service providers in the US. In effect, most US consumers have a choice only between a cable company and a digital broadband service from a telecoms company such as Verizon. The failure of US regulatory policy to enforce infrastructure unbundling - and create competition among broadband providers of the kind seen in Europe - is to blame for that. Unfortunately, the FCC did not enforce consumer telecoms competition strongly enough in the past, although the idea of "unbundling" phone networks first emerged in the US. Perhaps, rather than relying on big companies striking confusing deals, it should return to first principles.