A recent chain of events has brought the issue of net neutrality to the forefront of the discussion on telecommunications regulation. The Federal Communications Commission’s regulatory ability was curtailed by a ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Comcast v. FCC. The Court decided that the FCC had no jurisdiction to enforce their “broadband policy statement” on Comcast, which had been deliberately reducing the Internet speed of users who use peer-to-peer networks. In response, the FCC announced it would reclassify broadband providers under the same regulatory umbrella as telephone companies. Immediately a coalition of congressmen wrote a letter calling on the FCC to wait for Congress to act with amendments to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Net neutrality is a set of principles, meant to maintain a free and open Internet, and to ensure competition amongst Internet Service Providers. In
the past decade we have seen an enormous increase in citizen participation and the growth of grassroots democracy through web-based media such as blogs. Entrepreneurs have started businesses that fuel our economy completely within the confines of the Internet. We must protect these new models with some form of regulation that prevents ISPs from reducing user access. We must find a balance between the maintenance of adequate pipeline capacity and the essential openness of the Internet with respect to content.

Current regulation is insufficient. Consumers must have the right to access the websites of their choice, and individuals must have the right to start their own websites. It should not be up to an ISP to create content-based tiers of access, preventing people from viewing certain sites. Content providers should not be made to pay discriminating amounts for the transport of content. Such restrictions would limit Internet access to certain kinds of information for many, reserving it to large interests that can afford the price of transport.

We must also be sure that consumers are able to connect to the network of their choice with the equipment of their choice, similar to the regulations imposed on AT&T in the ’60s. Living in a state where most localities are often dominated by one or two ISPs, New Yorkers should be aware of the possibilities an unregulated telecommunications industry might bring. The lack of competition here means that if access is restricted on one network, the consumer will be unable to move to a competitor who offers greater access.

At the same time, the telecom companies have a legitimate interest in protecting their investments and infrastructure from those who exploit the availability of unlimited bandwidth. Applications such as YouTube and BitTorrent consume large amounts of bandwidth. The segment of the population that consumes the bulk of bandwidth is quite small. These users create pressures on the infrastructure and endanger services for other customers using less bandwidth. We can develop mechanisms that assure a balanced approach to the bandwidth problem, without allowing for content-based censorship.

Net neutrality does not need to be formulated as an anti-business issue. Legislation must be drafted that protects consumers while preserving the ability of ISPs to continue a profitable business model. In 2007, I introduced the Omnibus Telecommunications Reform Act with the goal of increasing competition and broadband penetration in the state, but action at the local level is not enough.  Congress must reform the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to ensure that the regulations governing our networks apply properly and do not simply regulate the future based on the infrastructure of the past. 


--
Richard Brodsky, a Democrat representing parts of Westchester County, is chair of the Assembly Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee.