In my recent post on Digital Society, I posit that the FCC’s proposed NPRM on Internet regulation raises more questions than it does answers. This might be considered progress for an academic research project, but not for public policy. Proponents on both sides of the Net Neutrality debate suspect that the FCC is seriously confused about its own proposed policy and the effects it will have on the Internet. FCC Chief Technologist Dr. Jon Peha confirmed that suspicion when he commented that the NPRM was intentionally vague to solicit comment and that the FCC “has an awful lot of questions” about the NPRM.

In this environment of uncertainty it’s not surprising that the NPRM has raised some serious red flags over the FCC’s intention towards paid peering services. These are increasingly popular services where a content, application or service (CAS) provider pays an ISP for connection just to the ISP’s customers and not to the whole Internet. Paid Peering is considerably cheaper and many see it as a way for small CAS providers to survive against the giants of the industry. Nonetheless, the NPRM’S proposed ban on “enhanced” services by ISPs — a misguided attempt to protect content providers from discrimination by ISPs — could apply to Paid Peering and end up harming instead of helping content providers.

When William Norton (a.k.a. “Dr. Peering”) raised this concern in a recent post he was lambasted by some for over-interpreting the NPRM, or even maligning it. But I agree with Norton that this is a serious issue since section 106 of the FCC NPRM which proposes a ban on certain business models is notably vague in its use of the words “enhanced and prioritized” whereas other sections were very specific. It’s compounded by the vagaries of the FCC’s policy so far and the boundless regulatory appetite of law professors like Larry Lessig, Tom Wu and Jack Balkin who recently wrote the FCC complaining that the proposed NPRM regulations aren’t restrictive enough against ISPs.

But there is hope in that President Obama believes private investment will help grow our economy and create jobs. This is especially true for investment in the Internet, the forefront of entrepreneurship and innovation. A recent example of such innovation includes the new workable Paid Peering option model in which a CAS provider pays an ISP $1 to $3 per megabit per second (Mbps) each month for direct reliable performance access, compared to $2 to $9 for traditional indirect and unreliable performance Internet transit while flooding the crucial Internet backbone.

This is the kind of innovation that will keep the United States in the forefront of technology and it must remain unfettered, but innovations like Paid Peering may not have been possible had Internet freedom been stifled by red tape. Let’s hope the federal government is mindful of this as they continue to mull over new regulations of the Internet.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.