Begun, the Net Neutrality Wars have

Wow... it's practically lightspeed for any branch of FedGov to move this fast. It's only been since July last year, when Comcast and the FCC got hot and bothered about what "reasonable" means, in a network-management sense, that I've been waiting for movement on the whole Net Neutrality issue... and Monday, it came, with the chairman of the FCC announcing the start of a process to enshrine in regulation the core tenets of NN, then going a step beyond and saying that he wants the new rules to apply to all Internet connections, including wireless phones.

Of course, it didn't take long for members of the Republican party to try and throw a spanner in the works. Their first attempt is to try to amend a bill in such a way as to make the FCC unable to spend any money on implementing these consumer protections (link). The ever-popular "tread lightly when it comes to new regulations" is quickly followed by "could stifle investment incentives", as put forth by one of the senators involved.

OK, now here's a fine example of why I am not a Republican (for the record, I'm not a Democrat either). I truly believe that companies providing a service have every right to price their service according to demand and the cost of that service. Where I differ from these Republicans is that I don't believe that service providers should be allowed to "water down" their offerings (without informed consent, at least) for users that abide by the rules of the service, in the name of protecting said users from those that break the rules. Neither do I believe that companies should be allowed to secretly interfere with the service they provide, especially when they do it to prop up other divisions of their company (VoIP and Internet video, to use Comcast as an example), in the name of safeguarding investments. If you want to invest in the current market leaders as a "safe" investment, great... if you want to invest in the Next Big Thing, hoping to make a killing, good on you. However, just because you're an investor, you have no right to assume that both investments are with the same company... or, if they are, that the investments in the future will allow for anything more than the continued survival of your cash cow.

Right, just a bit off-track there... let's see, wireless companies, of course, are also up-in-arms, complaining that open access rules will swamp their networks. I don't know first-hand, but I hear that's already pretty true for AT&T with the iPhone in some areas... but it's also a pretty moot point. We're back to that whole cost/demand equation (and side note: I'm sure texting is still insanely out of line with that concept)... if you have so many people using your service that you can't keep up, raise the price and invest (if possible) in improving your infrastructure. Will that mean that you lose some customers? Sure... but they will bog down your competitors, if they are still offering lower rates. Unless, of course, you're worried that your competitors will do the right thing, upgrade their infrastructure, and leave you in the dust... that's not your concern, right?

Wow, off-track and mildly combative, all in one post... OK, quick summary and finish. If you're offering Internet access, it's right that you be held to offering the whole Internet, unless you tell us in advance what you're not offering, and why. Companies have failed that test in the past, which is why regulation is needed (and please, no "it's just a few bad apples", you want to control problems before they become widespread, or worse, ingrained). If you can't operate under those conditions, be afraid... even if this change doesn't make it through FedGov this time, technology is changing ever faster, and your service will become obsolete someday soon. Whether you survive depends greatly on your ability to keep pace while keeping your customers content... and there's a whole new generation of tech-savvy types out there, waiting for you to disappoint them.