The Business of Broadband

There are divisive issues that separate us at times, and they can turn normally logical, reasonable people into dogmatic, irrational fanatics. Some say it’s the nature of certain issues that they must be seen in shades of gray–that they can be viewed objectively from several angles, thus opposing viewpoints can have equal merit. One analogy given is of a group of blind men examining an elephant. The one examining the elephant’s tail says it is a rope. Another feels its leg, and says it is a pillar. A third feels the trunk, and claims it’s a snake. You get the idea.

I tend to think that most issues are black and white. I believe in objective truth. In other words, on most questions, one side is going to be right and one is wrong. Even when an issue is not that clear-cut, I believe there is usually some common ground and understanding that can be found. What often hinders this is the fringe element. There are those on each side that will overstate their argument. They will throw up straw men and red herrings to divert attention. This pollutes the dialogue, and even those who want to come to some agreement can’t see the good points on the other side because of noisy, fallacious rhetoric from the fringe. They’re blinded from seeing the big picture, just like the men trying to come to agreement on what the elephant is.

On the Net Neutrality issue, I’ve seen something like this. Those on one fringe say that if Net Neutrality is not codified, the evil telephone and cable companies will limit or block competitive traffic, charge for access to certain content, and then line their pockets with the ill-gotten gains. Some claim this activity is already rampant. The other side says that any regulation of the Internet will cause investment in new technologies and broadband growth to grind to a halt.

In the 1800s Charles Spurgeon said that a lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on. That was never more true than it is today. Google and Verizon tried to find common ground on Net Neutrality. Misrepresentations of their efforts were published in the New York Times, and they were excoriated before they ever had a chance to present their actual ideas. They should be applauded for trying, but instead were vilified as being self-serving co-conspirators. Several groups even protested at Google headquarters.

When you look at Net Neutrality objectively, and filter out the noise, there are good points on both sides. I’m not saying it’s a gray issue. It’s true that service providers need the ability to manage their networks and charge for excess usage if they are going to provide an acceptable level of service for all customers—and not lose money in the process. The FCC’s own report confirmed that the top 10% of subscribers use 70% of the bandwidth. It’s also true that companies will misbehave from time to time, and there needs to be a consequence when they do. But, existing regulations and market forces have tended to take care of that.

There is not an issue with the openness of the Internet today, so what’s the rush. Rather than trying to force-fit Internet into an outdated regulatory framework that was not designed for today’s broadband world, lets all take a breath, and take the time to come up with meaningful regulations that will protect both the broadband consumer and the companies that provide them service.