Analysis: A conversation about Net neutrality

The telecom industry trade journalist in me sometimes has to remind the consumer in me when to be outraged. The consumer in me tends not to think about what’s going on behind the curtain if I don’t get the sense that it’s affecting my own personal experience.

So, this week’s court ruling that rejected the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to regulate Comcast’s network management practices triggered another heart-to-heart conversation between the two.

The journalist: “Those in power—whether governments or corporations--have to be held accountable, not just for the actions they take, but for the actions they potentially could take when freed from any possibility of restraint. That’s why, following the court loss, the FCC need to have this regulatory authority extended to it by Congress.”

The consumer: “But, this court ruling doesn’t really change anything as it stands now, does it? My Comcast broadband service works no worse or no better than it did yesterday. Ultimately, I just want a quality connection, and if my service provider needs to slow a few excessive downloaders to even things out, I’m okay with that. If those downloaders need that much more bandwidth, maybe they should have to pay for it.”

The journalist: “See, you don’t get it. You need to be outraged because now Comcast can do whatever it wants. It can block whoever it wants and claim it’s only managing its network. It can delay your traffic and lend the bandwidth to some corporate customer or even the golfing partner of a high-level Comcast exec, and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to stop that from happening.”

The consumer: “But, why would Comcast want to do that? It’s a very competitive market from what I hear, and if Comcast does that, there are other broadband service providers I can sign up with after I ditch Comcast. I’ll take my Internet, TV and phone service and give them all to someone else.”

The journalist: “Comcast would do that because it can, and because any other service provider you run to would be capable of doing the same thing. If they lose you, they will write it off as a minor inconvenience to keep their big-revenue corporate customers happy. That’s why you need someone like the FCC to protect you.”

The consumer: “Okay, so the answer is to have the federal government take charge of this issue like it took charge of the Wall Street bailout and supposedly is taking charge of healthcare. This big government stuff worries me.

The journalist: “Who would you rather have in your face? Big government or big corporations?”

The consumer: “How about neither?”

The journalist: “Hey, I’m supposed to be the idealist here. What it boils down to is you need rules and someone to enforce them, and you need accountability.”

The consumer: “Okay, but isn’t there also the possibility that as the FCC invokes its power to regulate broadband, it could result in worse broadband quality for me because Comcast won’t be able to do some of the things it might have been doing before to manage its network?”

The journalist: “That could happen, theoretically.”

The consumer: “Just like Comcast could theoretically block me if the FCC doesn’t have the power to act? So, basically, I’m rolling the dice either way. Can’t we just leave it the way it is now?”

The journalist: “No.”

Editor’s Note: Want to join the conversation taking place in Dan’s head. Add your comments below