The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has said that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) overstepped its authority when it cited Comcast, the largest cable TV company in the United States, for attempting to control the traffic on its network. This puts an end to the so-called net neutrality efforts by the FCC to allow any Internet content to pass over any network any time without carrier interference or control.

Article Tools

• 

This idea is good for the free flow of data and services. But some activities, especially video, can overload some networks and slow or deny service to others. That’s why Comcast chose to manage the video being exchanged via Bit Torrent over its network. The FCC issued a citation to Comcast, which appealed the decision. The court essentially said that the FCC did not have the legal power to control Comcast. This victory is a clear-cut benefit to cable, telecom, and wireless companies, which now have the freedom to manage their networks without regulation.

All networks, especially wireless, have a finite bandwidth. The owner and manager of the network should have the right to manage and control the traffic over that bandwidth. The Internet service providers (ISPs) should also have the right to charge higher usage fees to those users who dominate the network with extra-heavy traffic.

Net neutrality is an attempt to force ISPs to provide any-time, any-bandwidth service to all users. That’s a generous grant for users, and we can all get behind it even though we may not use it. Yet it ignores the fact that the ISPs have invested billions in their networks and need to manage them to provide the best service to all users within the limitations of the network. That seems fair to me. It is especially important for wireless carriers to have the leeway to control what are, at the moment, networks that still are very restricted and have limited bandwidth.

Most carriers are updating their networks on a regular basis as service demands increase and as capital funding is available to upgrade. Also, most of us already have essentially what amounts to net neutrality now, even without FCC regulation. What specifically aren’t you getting now that net neutrality would provide? I suspect that only a tiny fraction of the Internet population really needs full video bandwidth all the time. I also suspect the FCC could cite other incidents that would signal even the slightest need for Internet control.

Net neutrality was to be one of the key features of the FCC’s recently announced broadband plan. I doubt that the lack of this ability will hinder that plan. Yet some say this court decision hampers it considerably. The broadband plan has much to offer, and I believe its goals can be met without a net neutrality provision. Let’s get on with it.

I can’t help but think that the FCC is hating its defeat and will be seeking some way around it. For example, the FCC could ask Congress to grant it the right to regulate the Internet. Or it could reclassify ISPs as telecommunications companies, which it does regulate. The FCC could even appeal to the Supreme Court. Who knows what else the FCC has in mind? Hopefully its efforts can be defeated or seriously delayed. The Internet has grown successfully beyond all expectations over the years without regulation, and there are few if any signs that the lack of a net neutrality provision has hampered it. Let’s leave well enough alone.