Earlier today Kristen
wrote about Vuze, the IPTV network and it's petition of the FCC to prevent Comcast and other network operators from acting in ways that aren't network neutral. As anyone who read my less-than-favorable to Comcast coverage can tell you, I'm not a big fan of companies that defy the principles of network neutrality.
The libertarian answer to whether or not we need network neutrality is "let the market decide." The problem here is the issue of government assisted monopoly. The US Federal government has been treading in the space of telecom and cable as long as there has been such technology, gerrymandering territories, and setting arbitrary limits on how much control one company is allowed to have. They've been lobbied to give arbitrary subsidies to create universal access that get squandered the moment the companies receive them.
This is why I have a real hard time accepting the answer of some libertarian telco-apologists who argue against network neutrality mandates.
I think the problem is that like with most issues that bleed over to politics, there are very few black and white answers, and certainly none when you pull back your viewfinder and look at the problem in context. A company will always do what is in its best financial interest; that is what the purpose of a company is. If the powers that be at AT&T and Comcast evaluate the opportunity cost of going to war with their customers versus the cost of ensuring network neutrality, they're going to fall down not on what may be ethically right or wrong, but what is fiscally right or wrong.
So what is the answer? More regulation? Can we really trust the government to make wise choices when it comes to technology? If you can honestly answer that question with a yes while maintaining a straight face, remind me never to play poker with you, because the answer is obvious.
What if the FCC enacts more regulation and requirements to prevent telecoms and cable companies from engaging in non-net neutral behavior? First of all, it is doubtful the FCC could be effective in enforcement, as it is typically very difficult to prove such a condition actually exists conclusively (the best we can do is point to the symptoms of non-network neutrality). On top of that, the added intrusive monitoring, reporting and regulation that would have to take place to ensure compliance would act as a barrier to entry for folks who could ethically compete against the larger companies, thus further ensuring other negative side-effects of their large monopolistic practices.
This is going to sound counter-intuitive, but I think the answer may be more de-regulation of the industries involved. Stop subsidizing large telecommunications providers to "wire up rural areas" to the tune of billions a year and make them work for their money. When they lose the free money (or better yet, are forced to pay back all the money they were given but never fulfilled promises for), it will create a situation of weakness for these last-mile providers that will provide an opening for competition to step in.