The Los Angeles County Bar Association blog’s extended analysis of the Comcast v. FCC decision features a more in-depth look at some of the net neutrality issues mentioned in yesterday’s post. The appeals court ruling led to the FCC’s new proposal last week to impose network neutrality in a “third way.” One paragraph from the LACBA blog post is excerpted here:
ISPs such as Comcast and AT&T oppose preserving the Internet as a single, neutral pipeline and, instead, wish to bifurcate or multitier the Internet pipeline into lanes based not on broadband access/speed (as it is now) but rather on content (much like cable). This takes power out of the hands of consumers. For example, one’s current access to the Internet is dependent on speed and geography. A users computer equipment and access to broadband service (versus dial-up service) control speed. Once on the Internet, however, a consumer can access all content. A non-neutral Internet is one in which a consumer’s access to information is controlled by the ISP and subject to the ISP’s price and aggregation choices. This model may have benefits for entertainment properties trafficked on the Internet, but those benefits may only go to a few since Comcast, the nations largest cable provider, is poised to acquire NBC Universal in an environment where ISPs can discriminate against content. A discriminatory Internet may also prove dubious if it creates a cultural and educational divide. Several issues come to mind. Will news organizations also see their way to the Internet lanes with the highest subscriber fees or most desirable bundles? What happens in a society when the information pipeline is no longer accessible to citizens on an equal basis? What happens to advertising and media when the viral market is no longer neutral?