Homeowner's Blog

Up until a recent court decision it was assumed that the Federal Communications Commission had the necessary authority to make sure consumers had the right to access legal websites and use legal applications. The FCC has needed to use that power only rarely, and consumers have enjoyed the benefits of this "network neutrality". The recent court decision was that in fact Congress had never granted the FCC such authority. FCC Chairman Genachowski has proposed an alternative approach, and has also promised that, if it is approved, the FCC will continue to use the same light regulatory hand that it has always used. Opponents of his proposal fear that it goes too far, creating the potential of regulations that could have detrimental side effects.

We believe that there must be a mutually acceptable middle ground somewhere in this debate. The telecoms all say they continue to support network neutrality, but are concerned that some future FCC may not adhere to its light regulatory approach. The companies claim that the Internet were to be heavily regulated, it could undermine continued private investment that is critical to achieve universal broadband availability. This is a credible argument - infrastructure  investment in this sector continues to be impressive despite middling profit levels, and continued federal budget realities are such that universal broadband availability will not be achieved anytime soon without that investment. With these factors in mind it would seem that there must be some formula that would give the FCC just enough authority to protect maintain network neutrality should some company violate Network Neutrality principles in the future, but not so much authority that investors or consumers need fear that private sector investment might be threatened by a heavy-handed regulatory approach by a future FCC.