The recent court ruling determining that the F.C.C. does not have the authority to regulate Net Neutrality seems to have stoked the embers of discourse on Net Neutrality Legislation once again. But I wonder whether the growing emphasis on such legislation is simply a distraction.
The music industry, more specifically records, radio, tapes, and CDs, were all platforms for content distribution. As a kid, I grew up listening to the full gamut of what radio stations, tapes and CDs had to offer. I still have a few records in mint condition that I listen to. It was the variety of content and choice of medium that provided the soundtrack to my adolescence.
The heyday of broadcasting might have been on its decline by the time I was a young adult but I understood its model. Enjoying music flourished with little more than the requirement that radio stations pay record labels and, through them, the songwriter royalties to perform their content. The music industry relied on regional competition to ensure choice for listeners. The FCC adopted baseline content regulations but otherwise gave the music industry a large creative license over the content they produced and distributed. Deliver the best and most popular music and you’d reach a wider and broader audience. Understand your particular market best, and you’d receive the material boom from the generation of kids playing your sounds everywhere.
The development of the Internet followed a similar, albeit more explosive, pattern. As we all rushed to join the Internet community, and ISP’s invested in expanding and improving Internet infrastructures, connection speeds underwent exponential growth. So too did the content available online. The government had, as with radio, been largely hands off with the exception of limiting services that undermined copyright law and adopting guidelines for network openness. With the advent of high speed Internet (now defined by the FCC in 2009 as data transmission speeds exceeding 768Kbps) the type and quantity of web content is, today, limited only insofar as your imagination.
Against this backdrop, I worry that Net Neutrality legislation (yes, I used the word “legislation” purposefully) is a huge head fake towards the wrong issues. And, I don’t think I stand alone here. As users, shouldn’t we ask our governments to focus on encouraging (and requiring) ISPs and content providers (like Google, Facebook and YouTube) to look forward and do more for our Internet service? Shouldn’t governments make it clear to these providers that each has a duty to protect end-users from malware, illegal and universally offensive content? Honestly, I can’t remember ever being blocked from any legitimate something I wanted to go to on the Internet. So, to legally mandate an open and free Internet might be as useful as mandating “free air” legislation for everyone. I think we have that already . . . shouldn’t governments focus on what we don’t have?
The Internet has become something completely distinct from all preceding content distribution platforms. It is the fastest growing and most efficient means by which all content owners can freely publish and broadcast their creations and the average end user can enjoy content produced globally. At the same time, safety issues never before considered in other distribution platforms are now very much a real and viable threat to every Internet user. For example, the idea of a malware program being transferred to unsuspecting listeners via radio airwaves is laughable. Even the previous music platforms that theoretically could harbor a malicious code — such as a tape or CD were by and large free from such concerns. On the Internet, however, both publisher and listener face real threats and they are growing every day.
As a user, and citizen, I’d prefer that if governments are going to act, that they focus on making the Internet better. I think of this as akin to “clean air” legislation requiring networks and content providers to reduce harmful transmissions for the benefit of everyone. Citizens of the United States, and many other jurisdictions on the planet, already enjoy free and open Internet. Reaching backwards in time to provide legislation to codify what we already enjoy in the absence of any threat to that freedom seems like a waste of time. Adopting legislation to make what we currently enjoy better, safer, and free of these new and growing threats . . . well, that would be nothing short of cool.
.tom
