Another Step in the Right Direction
July 17th, 2008 by Chief NutThis past week, Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC, stated that the cable goliath Comcast had essentially violated the agency’s principles on open access to the Internet.
What does this mean for you? The topic is called “Net Neutrality” and these landmark cases, going on right now, will determine the future of how the Internet works for you (and your kids). The question is simply whether a service provider has the right to impose restrictions (equipment, filtering of content, use of applications, etc.) on a network in any way. Imagine if one network creates a really cool new gizmo or application. Should another network service be allowed to block its use or charge extra for it simply because it sees it as competitive? The obvious answer is no.
Before the flame wars start here, however, let me state that this is nothing short of complex. Both sides of the argument have valid points and the resolution of this topic will not be an easy one. The direction these cases take us will forever impact all of our lives. Important: Take note of this topic, if you haven’t already, and voice your opinion.
Net neutrality has its allure as a concept. People see it as leveling the playing field and we all like fairness. Hoever, I believe the the concept of net neutrality is far too simplistic and that imposing it will create unwanted and unfair results that would be avoided if we continue to evaluate these issues on a case by case basis.
Like most people, I am against companies setting up false barriers to prevent customers from using their competitors’ innovations on their networks, or from interacting with networks that have these innovations. This anticompetitive behavior should be discouraged, as it retards technological innovation.
However, I agree with Bob Kahn’s observations that “nothing interesting can happen inside the net” if a net neutrality law or regulation passes and that “if the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, then the party that takes the lead in building that new capability, is probably only going to have it on their net to start with and it is probably not going to be on anybody else’s net.” This applies to new technologies that one provider has and wont share, which spurs technological innovation and is honest competition that should be encouraged.
In law school we always talked about the conflict between certainty and fairness of the law. When absolute rules are made, they provide a certain level of certainty to people. However, most issues are not black and white but, rather, are infinite shades of grey and absoute rules, of which I see “net neutrality” as one, dont take this into account.
As always, I am only a patent attorney. What the heck do I know?
Comment by Mike Persson - NH Patent Attorney — July 17, 2008 @ 8:41 am
Hi Mike,
Have I told you lately that I LOVE your input and perspective?!
I AGREE WITH:
being “… against companies setting up false barriers to prevent customers from using their competitors innovations on their networks.” In fact, this is my only REAL beef in the larger issue.
I DISAGREE WITH:
The “nothing interesting can happen inside the net” comment. I think a well crafted net neutrality requirement would not restrict the creation of new innovations, however, it would disallow competitive restrictions on the innovation.
In short, I don’t think the issue is one of restricting “creation” … I think it’s an issue of restricting “access” or “openess”.
Comment by Chief Nut — July 17, 2008 @ 8:51 am
You say that a well crafted net neutrality reqirement would not restrict the creation of new inventions but would disallow competitive restrictions on the innovation. Getting past my skepticism that Congress would be able to draft and pass a “well crafted” net neutrality requirement law, what would such a law look like?Would companies who innovate be forced to share these innovations with competitors, or would this not be a “competitive” restriction? Would well financied companies be able to drive competitors out of the market by forcing them to spend millions of dollars to upgrade their networks so that new technologies developed by the well financed companies will work on their networks? If not, how do you tell the difference between a company making a financial decision about not upgrading to accomodate a competitor’s technology and one making an “anti-competitive” one? A well crafted law would need to deal with these issues and many others.
This issue seems less black and white and more like shades of gray to me…
Comment by Mike Persson - NH Patent Attorney — July 18, 2008 @ 11:15 am
Hmmm… I think “shades of gray” is also an understatement. It’s more like a paint factory explosion … but definitely NOT black and white.
Comment by Chief Nut — July 21, 2008 @ 11:34 am