Should Comcast and Verizon be allowed to enter the information mining game? Yes.

Overview

Proponents of the implementation by the Federal Communications Commission of net neutrality rules have been expressing outwardly that by ensuring no throttling of traffic from websites; no blocking access to favored and lawful websites; transparency when it comes to terms and conditions of service or network management; and the prohibition of favored treatment of one content provider’s traffic over another, that consumers of broadband services will be treated fairly and that edge providers will be able to innovate on the edge of the internet while competing with core providers.

While proponents have successfully convinced millions of Americans that net neutrality is about the consumer’s ability to democratize the web or have their voices equally heard among other, especially larger corporate voices, the real issue is whether core providers should be allowed to participate in the information markets or be kept out by making an 85-year old statute a barrier to their entry.

Battle in the Information Market

The statutory approach recommended by edge providers such as Facebook and Google to ensure that core providers such as Comcast and Verizon are reigned in is to apply Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Edge providers make their bread and butter by mining information from visitors to or users of their website services and packaging that information into advertising products that they sell to businesses that are trying to get their services before as many eyeballs on the internet as possible.

The concern that the edge provider has with the core provider is that given the core provider’s “gateway” service and the core provider’s alleged monopoly or near monopoly control of the access to the internet, the core provider will then be able to capture consumer behavioral information that the edge provider has less access to.

The core provider, the edge provider will argue, is gathering this information from its telecommunications infrastructure; therefore, to ensure fairness, the core provider should not be allowed to call the telecommunications portion of his service an information service just so that they can skirt the information or data collection requirements under Title II.

By creating a net neutrality rule that says that core providers should treat access as a telecommunications service, the edge provider gets the government to apply a barrier to entry to the information market, a barrier that the edge provider has no confidence its superior information services can erect itself.

The Content Endgame: What Would Title II Do and Not Do

If Verizon wanted to use information “that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of telecommunications service used by a consumer of a telecommunications service, that information, in general, would be limited in use to services related to the provision of telecommunications services. Verizon would not be able to use information related to the provision of telecommunications services to predict consumer demand for Verizon’s video streaming services.

Interpreting and applying Title II in this manner would help Hulu and Netflix keep Comcast and Verizon at bay. What it may also do is expose Hulu and Netflix’s pricing and cost structures during any public hearing resulting from Hulu and Netflix’s new roles as consumers of telecommunications services. Sections 204 and 205 of Title II provide the Federal Communications Commission the authority to set just and reasonable charges and to have hearings on those charges or on complaints regarding charges and price schedules. What Hulu and Netflix may not understand is that regulation of a market means scrutiny of both of its sides, and challenges to rates charged by a core provider means rebuttal that could include discovery of what economic rationale underlies an edge provider’s assertions. In short, Title II opens the Pandora’s Box for edge providers, too.

What Title II doesn’t do is tell Comcast or Verizon that they couldn’t collect consumer behavioral information from their websites or information portals. This “oversight” is further evidence of how arcane Title II is. A declaration by the courts that a core provider’s services are information services, from end user through a core provider’s entire network would be indication that the State recognizes that core and edge providers equally play in the information markets. Avoiding a balkanized, bifurcated view of broadband service provision would make regulation of advanced communications more efficient because of less time spent having to look at two separated pieces of internet service versus one.

The FCC’s Constitutional Quandry

But even if regulators continued down the two-prong path of regulating core providers, the end game would still be how to treat the content portions of their services. The Federal Communications Commission should not want to be in the position where it would take a hands-off approach to Facebook’s information mining techniques while taking a heavy handed approach to Verizon’s emerging content play. It would cause a constitutional dust up were the Commission to regulate the content of one service provider but not the content of another.

Conclusion

Core providers have the technical knowledge and desire to enter information markets and for that reason alone they should be allowed to profit from the development of content and the extraction and packaging of data that drives a modern economy. Core providers shouldn’t be punished because their basic business model includes the conveyor belts that information is placed on when being extracted. Imagine telling a coal miner that in order to foster competition, they will have to forego their conveyor belt and, like a firm that entered the market late and poorly capitalized, will have to use their hands and wheel barrel to move coal out of the mine. That is not competition but favoritism.

Advertisements

Atlanta should avoid the net neutrality debate. It’s not good for business

Internet Innovation Alliance co-founder Bruce Mehlman posted an article yesterday discussing the positive impact relaxed regulatory requirements can have on investment in and deployment of broadband networks. According to Mr. Mehlman, investment in broadband rose by $1.5 billion to $76.3 billion.  He contrasts this to the $3.2 billion decline in investment between 2015 and 2016.

What made the difference? According to Mr. Mehlman it was the decision last year by the Federal Communications Commission to repeal their 2015 open internet order, a decision that put into regulatory code a number of net neutrality principles.  The 2015 order treated broadband access providers as telephone companies by applying consumer and telephone network management rules that were based on communications law from the 1930s.  That approach, according to Mr. Mehlman, just can’t fly in the 21st century.

Unfortunately, Washington has been embroiled in a debate over how net neutrality principles should be applied.  There is a consensus among opponents to and proponents of net neutrality principles that consumers should be able to access web content of their choice; that content providers should not have their traffic speeds throttled by broadband access providers; and that broadband access providers should be transparent about the terms and conditions of their services.  Whether a rule by a regulatory agency is the best approach to ensuring these policy goals is an issue.

Getting to yes on net neutrality may be best brought about by an action of Congress.  Defining net neutrality in the law and laying out the components of its meaning will give content providers and broadband access providers definitive guideposts that help settle any conflicts in the future.  Without a congressional action, the industry and consumers run the risk of a back and forth regulatory battle driven by changes in political power, particularly when a new presidential administration takes over and a new chairman is appointed.  That type of uncertainty every four years is not good for consumers or business.

As more people and businesses move to Atlanta, regulatory certainty becomes an asset for the person who telecommutes; for the financial technology company that needs to maintain connection to its app subscribers; to the student who relies on distance learning to complete assignments.

Treating a broadband provider facing competition from three or four more broadband providers as if they were a monopoly local telephone company in 1934 won’t contribute to Atlanta’s continued growth.