Economists and legal analysts debated net neutrality Thursday, trying to shed some light on what has become a high profile political issue in recent weeks.
Everyone from President Obama and Ted Cruz to Mark Cuban and Jesse Jackson has weighed in on the subject, and while most people believe that a free and open Internet is vital for technological innovation, there is confusion surrounding what legal measures the Federal Communications Commission should take to ensure that broadband providers should treat all Internet traffic equally.
“The Great Net Neutrality Debate” put on by think tank TechFreedom in partnership with the Heritage Foundation, featured four tech industry experts. Debate panelists included Marvin Ammori of the New America Foundation, American University’s Professor Jonathan Baker, Forbes contributor and Progressive Policy Institute fellow Hal Singer as well as Berin Szoka of TechFreedom. Moderation for the debate was provided by Re/Code’s Amy Schatz.
The debate centered on the issues of paid prioritization and the reclassification of the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Baker and Amori argued in favor of using Title II to completely ban fast land deals while Singer and Szoka favored a “rule of reason” approach that would allow companies to pay for priority speeds in certain situations.
Singer used the telemedical situation of a doctor monitoring a medical procedure remotely as an example of an instance where a paid priority arrangement would be positive for both the end user and Internet provider. “The patient wins, the app provider wins, and God forbid the ISP earns a little extra revenue,” argued Singer, who said rule of reason regulations would be able to allow efficiency deals to take place while restricting paid priority arrangements that would be harmful to consumers.
In response, Baker strongly criticized prioritization models arguing that the Internet is a general purpose technology and paid prioritization would hurt start-up companies without the financial means to either pay for priority speeds or take legal action in the event that their connections are throttled by an ISP.
“If the next Facebook has to pay for an Internet fast lane, the next Mark Zuckerberg might go into investment banking instead of creating the next big new thing on the Internet,” said Baker, who argued that Title II reclassification is necessary to prevent ISPs from abusing their Internet gatekeeper positions through paid prioritization.
While the event produced no clear resolution of the debate, it highlighted the importance of evaluating both sides of the net neutrality issue.
The FCC is expected to make a decision on what net neutrality regulations it will impose early next year.
