Net Neutrality Misunderstandings

Below we correct a number of key misunderstandings that continue to persist about proposed network neutrality rules despite Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s clarifications.

• Internet “Throttling” -- There is no reason to think that broadband ISPs have any interest in actively slowing Internet traffic, and even less reason to think such a practice would be allowed under the proposed rules. “Pay-to-play” would not be allowed -- no one would have to pay a fee in order to get their content or service to consumers. What would be allowed is “pay-to-improve” -- under these proposed rules, Internet services would only be allowed to get better, not worse.
• Prioritized Content -- Many reports indicate that ISPs will require payment for access to their “fast-lanes” and any type of traffic that gets stuck in the “slow-lane” will suffer. This is inaccurate. The vast majority of Internet traffic will not have a need to be prioritized and will continue to enjoy the current “best efforts” Internet.
• Favoring some traffic means shunting other traffic to the slow lane. The past and present Internet treats all packets the same. Advocates of net neutrality stress, correctly, that differentiated Type of Service, a piece of information within each packet that could enable the network to know what type of application the packet is for, has not been a major element, in practice, of carriage agreements among network operators.
• Consumer Harm. Again, if ISPs were found to be abusing these rules to hurt consumers, the rules would be very clearly designed to give the FCC authority to step in and stop any business practice that would actually hurt consumers or competition.
• Squash Innovation -- The types of prioritization arrangements that would pass muster under a “commercially reasonable” test would be overwhelmingly welfare maximizing, potentially unlocking totally new services.
• The complaint process will be arduous --The Commission would probably want to handle complaints internally. Furthermore, with sharp glare of the media spotlight and millions of consumers concerned about these issues, legitimate grievances will surface very quickly and demand swift resolution.
• Better to go back to Title II -- Rather than accept innovation in the core network, opponents of the rule would like to ban it, returning broadband to Title II classification. Title II classification would necessitate an abandonment of inter-modal competition and force providers into an arcane rate setting process inevitably reducing investment in our networks and the potential for innovative new broadband technologies. Moreover, Title II would likely be worse at protecting consumers from anti-competitive practices than the proposed rule.