Originally published July 17, 2006 for the Center for American Progress
In navigating the complex issue of “net neutrality,” the government should protect consumers’ rights amid a rapidly changing and dynamic Internet. Two experts agreed on that much Monday during a panel discussion hosted by the Center for American Progress, but they disagreed on how to do that without stifling innovation.
Bringing together two of the Internet’s founding figures, the Center welcomed Vint Cerf, Vice-President of Google; and Dave Farber, Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Carl Malamud, the Center’s Chief Technology Officer, moderated.
Cerf began by quickly surveying the history of net neutrality. From its inception, the Internet has been open to any kind of application or content provider, and those providers could be accessed by any Internet user over a neutral network. “People didn’t have to get permission” to try new ideas, said Cerf, which “helped to stimulate and sustain innovation.”
In a competitive and innovation-rich environment, Internet Service Providers acted as neutral facilitators between content providers and consumers. Consumers paid carrier companies to access the Web, but once they got there they could tap into the full range of content. The recent shift to broadband Internet service, though, creates “a significantly different environment,” according to Cerf.
Compared to the age of dial-up connections, consumers have fewer broadband service carriers to choose from. It is, said Cerf, “at best a duopoly, and half the time not even that much.” Those broadband companies are pushing for the ability to charge content providers, in addition to consumers, who use their networks. The danger is that discrimination will result based on one’s ability to pay, meaning the Internet will no longer be neutral for creative innovation. Instead it will be biased toward big businesses that can afford space on a high-speed Internet. Such a model “will seriously inhibit innovation on the network,” particularly if consumers have no choice in Internet access.
Farber, while largely agreeing with Cerf on the dangers of monopolistic broadband carriers, cautioned against uninformed government interference in a rapidly changing field. We must, he said, “make sure we don’t prejudge the path technology takes.” Concerned about the unintended consequences of hastily conceived legislation, Faber said that there are “plenty of mechanisms in place to solve and to change bad actions on the part of a carrier.” He and Cerf both mentioned the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Justice as the primary regulators of the Internet.
Cerf, though, was skeptical of the effectiveness of those agencies in managing abusive behavior. Regulation tends to be too reactive and case-specific. In the absence of market competition, he favors legally prohibiting broadband carriers from access discrimination. Otherwise, the ability of consumers to access Internet content may be compromised. “What’s worse than a regulated monopoly?” he asked in reference to broadband carriers. “An unregulated monopoly.”
Both Farber and Cerf agreed that the issues surrounding the Internet need to be better understood in Congress before any decisions are made. Right now, the policy debate is convoluted and reduced to slogans. If legislation is needed to protect the consumer, they said, “it needs to be unambiguous and actionable.”
