FTC on Net neutrality: No new laws needed
The lifelong bureaucrats at the Federal Trade Commission are hardly a bunch of Hayek-quoting, Ron Paul-voting libertarians.
Which is why it's worthwhile to note the conclusion that the FTC reached on Wednesday about Net neutrality: No new laws.
It took the FTC a mere 169 pages to arrive at that result in its new report on the topic, probably one of the most exhaustive treatments of Net neutrality to date. It concludes: "We recommend that policy makers proceed with caution in evaluating proposals to enact regulation in the area of broadband Internet access."
Translated from government-speak, that means there's no need for extensive regulations of the sort that the Republican-controlled Congress considered, and rejected, last year. The Democrats have not tried to resuscitate the legislation this year.
The FTC says, sensibly enough: "Industrywide regulatory schemes--particularly those imposing general, one-size-fits-all restraints on business conduct--may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents."
True to form, the FTC isn't recommending a hands-off approach. The staff report notes that it shares antitrust enforcement with the U.S. Justice Department and is "well-equipped to analyze potential conduct and business arrangements involving broadband Internet access." It also says that "current federal consumer protection law" can address deceptive marketing practices by Internet service providers.
Commissioner Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat, published what amounts to a dissenting opinion He said that existing antitrust law may not be "adequate to the task" of Internet broadband regulation.
The report drew praise from Tim Muris, who was forced to be circumspect while heading the FTC but can speak speak more freely now that he's back teaching at George Mason University's law school in Arlington, Va.
"Net neutrality is a meaningless term, lacking a rationale or analytical basis to impose new regulations on the Internet," Muris said. "Some government actions, while seeking to help consumers, harm them instead. As the FTC report today detailed, robust competition and dynamic business models pervade the Internet."
In contrast, pro-regulation groups, who would like to see the Federal Communications Commission receive the power to enforce Net neutrality rules, attacked the FTC report.
It "falls far short in its analysis of a competitive market and the related issue of Net neutrality," said Public Knowledge, which has pressed Congress to give the FCC that authority.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
I use skype every single day. What about them? How about a quote from one of our guy at the pentagon:
"I'm not a high-tech guy- I don't really do email."
Then we have the dmca and copyright extensions....
My opinion: Our lawmakers are idiots, and I hope, for the sake of the citizens of vermont, that they secede successfully. Perhaps it would tell our politicians something: they can't not use their heads and expect people to forgive them. I want to see people declaring them insufficient. They sure don't do what I need them to.
Hopefully, though, over the next 20 years, we get people in there that know what's going on.
This has resulted from a largely deregulated marketplace. More of this type of treatment will bring more broadband/hyperband (whatever you want to call it) to average consumers. And it will be facilities-based, not simply resale.
If there's a problem going forward, the FTC and FCC have all the authority they need to fix any issues of consumer harm.
- Hmmm...
- by HiF|yer June 29, 2007 8:31 AM PDT
- All this opinion says to me is that the crooks who want to steal the bandwidth believe they can already do it without any problems...they can loophole existing terminology. Certainly anything that has Alberto Gonzales' implied approval is bad for the country. We need to keep the pressure on legislators for a new law.
- Reply to this comment
-
(3 Comments)