Net neutrality EXPOSED

There has been a lot of heartfelt debate over net neutrality. It has ranged from John
Oliver's viral video calling Tom Wheeler (the FCC Chairman) "a dingo", to modest
uprisings of net neutrality advocates throughout the web. In February this year, the
FCC finally voted in favor of new rules that re-classify Internet service providers (ISPs)
as common carriers under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, allowing the
agency to create strong regulations for Internet traffic1. However: is the debate really
over?
The discussion, stated in plain terms, has been whether splitting the Internet service
in a low lane for some contents and a fast lane for others (something known as
paid prioritization) would be detrimental for consumers. In a world in which ISPs are
usually monopolistic2 and in which they are sometimes content producers (consider,
for instance, Comcast, who owns NBCUniversal) the response seems to be negative.
However, stating the problem of net neutrality in such simple terms may be at
least shortsighted.
At least in the US, debate does not seem to be really about how freedom of users
(and incentives for the creation of contents) would be affected if some contents on
the internet were to be prioritized, but rather (i) whether the status quo of USbased end users could or should be modified up to some extent, and (ii)
whether there is a possibility of switching to another ISP if the user is not
satisfied with the restrictions.
When Michael Powell expounded his famous principles for net neutrality back in 2004
(when users started migrating from dial up connections to broadband), his main point
was clearly economic: Consumers expect to be able to go where they want on highspeed connections, and those who have migrated from dial-up would presumably
object to paying the premium asked for broadband if certain content were
restricted.3 This does not sound like a matter of Internet philosophy. Outside of the
world of Internet jargon, net neutrality is likely a sophisticated translation of
a plain consumers rights issue which demands only two things: (i) If a user
already had an Internet connection, any modifications in the realm of access to
contents should be enacted upon prior written notice (note, at this point, that the
most celebrated decisions regarding net neutrality 4 involved unannounced and
concealed restrictions to the information service) and; (ii) If a user did not have an
Internet connection, she would probably want to be informed about content
restrictions for her new Internet service.

It can be implied that the core of consumers interest relies not so much one
the fact of having some contents restricted (by means paid prioritization), but
rather on the possibility of switching to another ISP if the restrictions are
not in line with consumers preferences. The heart of the discussion should be
centered in finding means for broadening the scope of available ISPs. At this point,
although it has been stated that ISPs work as natural monopolies (due to
apparently massive technical feats required for setting up a distribution network),
some voices are starting to raise other kind of problems: Local governments and
their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost. For
example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network
construction. So the real bottleneck isnt incumbent providers of broadband, but
incumbent providers of rights-of-way.5 If this is true, fostering ISP competition may
not be as difficult as it was thought to be. However, the new FCC Rules do not seem
to be of much help in this regard, as they treat newcomers under very severe
standards those applicable to common carriers . As Ajit Pai states: if one
Internet service provider wants to follow in the footsteps of Google Fiber and enter
the market incrementally, the FCC may say no. If another wants to upgrade the
bandwidth of its routers at the cost of some latency, the FCC may block it []. How
will this all be resolved? No one knows.6
Therefore, trying to ensure net neutrality by the means proposed by the FCC does not
seem to solve the real problem, which is finding ways for allowing more
competitors enter the ISP market. If that happened, discussion over content
restrictions would eventually evaporate: competition among ISPs should lead at least
some providers to offer unrestricted Internet, if that is what consumers really
demand. The beauty of this is that consumers are led to decide not just
individual Internet advocates, the FCC, ISPs or edge providers .
It must not be forgotten that todays Internet is not just a pure marketplace of ideas
(as it may have been in times of John Perry Barlow), but big business. It comes to no
surprise to have found among proponents of net neutrality companies such as
Amazon, eBay, Google, Facebook and Netflix. For these edge providers,
advocating for net neutrality as a policy may have been less costly than
ultimately having to deal with ISPs, which would represent at least two arguably
high costs: (i) to negotiate from a standpoint in which nobody assumes that an ISP
should provide access to all websites on an equal basis, and (ii) the cost of the
bargain itself, which may have brought into play equivalent or fungible edge
providers.
All in all, it must be understood that the Internet is not a sacred arena anymore.

There are big players with big incentives, and most of the current debates should be
carefully scrutinized in order to find a complete truth.

1 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-04-13/pdf/2015-07841.pdf
2 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/23/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130823
3 Michael K. Powell, Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry, 3 J. Telecomm & High
Tech. L. 5 (2004).
4 In re Madison River Communications, LLC, 20 F.C.C. Rcd. 4295 (2005); In re [Complaint Against] Comcast
Corp. for Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications, 23 F.C.C. Rcd. 13028 (2008).
5 http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-localgovernment-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ See also: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?
id=7021712146#page=3
6 https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A5.pdf