The Federal Trade Commission has formed an Internet Access Task Force to examine Net neutrality. The FTC will also host a conference called Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-Ade and public hearings from Nov. 6 to 8.
A pdf of the preliminary agenda is here.
This is an important hearing for Net Neutrality. Whether it is a positive development is questionable. Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras has already indicated her preferences as to the outcome:
Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras on Monday also called on lawmakers to be cautious about passing a Net neutrality law, which could prohibit broadband providers such as AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. from giving their own Internet content top priority, or from charging Web sites additional fees for faster service.
Net neutrality advocates are sincere in their concerns, Majoras said during a speech at the Progress & Freedom Foundation's Aspen Summit in Colorado. "I just question the starting assumption that government regulation, rather than the market itself under existing laws, will provide the best solution to a problem," she said.
While I wish to be positive concerning an opportunity to examine Net Neutrality issues the initial comments and the technology fair indicate that it may be a sales job unless Net Neutrality advocates are well represented at the hearings.
Net Neutrality advocates need to be focused on a few of key points:
First, their are relatively few instance of providers blocking competive content to date because thus far the internet has operated under the rules of Net Neutrality.
Second, under the rules of Net Neutrality, the internet has been a very competitive environment for content providers, software providers and, hardware providers. This competive environment i.e. "The Market", has seen rapid technological and economic development. Legislation that does not preserve Net Neutrality is interfering with regulation by market forces.
Third, Broadband providers have not been honest in portraying content providers as using their "pipes for free". I pay more for a high bandwith connection from my provider so that I can view content like Google Earth, or You Tube. Internet providers are financially benefitting from my desire to view content provided by others. This is a good scenario because I, the consumer, choose the content and bandwith I am willing to pay for. Likewise, I work with a content provider for my work, and they also pay more for their high bandwith connection (much more as they have a lot more bandwith than I get at home). Google is not providing content over a dial-up. The issue is not whether broadband providers are being paid for their bandwith, they are. The issue is over whether broadband providers get the ability to control and financially benefit from content.