Net Neutrality: Comcast and the FCC.

Net neutrality is the term used to describe the philosophical ideal that data should be able to move across the internet without regard to content, destination, or source. Net neutrality is often times called the "First Amendment of the Internet". In the United States, high-speed Internet carriers, such as Comcast, are attempting to get legislative support for a two-tiered Internet service model. In such a model, carriers would be able to charge web site owners a premium for priority placement and higher speed access across their available network bandwidth links. Those that oppose this say that the internet was built to work in a traffic-neutral manner, and that the internet is what it is today specifically because of that. These people want Congress passing bills more in favor of net neutrality.

Recently, a federal appeals court ruled that regulatory agencies such as the F.C.C. currently have limited power over controlling internet traffic. This will allow internet service providers to block or slow specific sites, charging video (and other similar) site owners an additional fee in order to deliver their content faster to web browsers. This court ruling came after Comcast asserted it has the right to slow cable customer access to file-sharing services such as BitTorrent. This court decision may force the F.C.C. to change its methods of attempting to maintain net neutrality on the web. Currently, internet service providers, including even Comcast, are apparently not actually planning on making immediate use of this court ruling to restrict specific types of internet content, but as things stand now they could do so in future.

The F.C.C. may look for other ways to legally implement consumer internet service protections as part of its current commitment to maintaining an open internet. This may require an act of Congress, which many people, even those in favor of the principle of net neutrality, are very wary of. I can certainly understand that, but I think it's too soon to say if legislative action is required, or even desirable, in this case. There may very well be enough competition available among internet service providers that such a step will be unnecessary. Ever increasing technological advancements, as well as ever changing customer needs and demands, make it very difficult to judge how all this will really turn out down the road, and whether or not this is something we should be concerned about as customers. We may just have to take a wait and see attitude, rather than jumping the gun on demanding legal interventions that could cause more harm than good.

I personally favor the principle of net neutrality, as I think would most any other consumer. Our government does have a legitimate place in providing and enforcing legal protections of our personal freedoms, as well as in maintaining a free and open marketplace, but its track record in this is very mixed to say the least. In this case, for now, I trust the internet service providers and their customers' influence on them slightly more than I do the government. If further legislation is required, I'm sure we will get it, and then some, so I hope our internet service providers do not force the issue. Hopefully they are wise enough to realize this and leave things well enough alone as they are.