UK Analyst Not so Clear on Net Neutrality

Posted 10/26/2009 at 12:31pm | by Bart Salisbury

4

Comments

Print

You have to seriously wonder how much people pay attention to issues, whether in general or specifically regarding the Internet. Take for example Tajinder Jagdev, the head of Communications, Media and Entertainment of the UK business analytics firm SAS. Jagdev sees the net neutrality proposals recently made by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) a bad thing, because while they rules benefit some parties, they harm others. Thank you Mr. Moto.

According to Jagdev, “The ruling would benefit content companies like Skype but cut into the revenues generated by telecom providers from phone calls. This ultimately raises outstanding issues that need to be addressed in order for the interests of all parties involved to be protected.” Which is exactly what the rules are supposed to do. An objective of the FCC is to keep Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as AT&T and Time Warner, from stifling creativity on the web. By definition its rule proposals will have to give some preference to content providers over ISPs.

Jagdev also maintains that unrestricted use: surfers running amok, visiting whatever site they pleased, would clog bandwidth and diminish the experience of all users. According to Jagdev: "SAS has already identified that a tiered billing model, in which users pay more money for higher bandwidth packages, is perhaps the most likely solution to remedy the problem of consumer inequality in the future and generate revenues."

Problem here is the FCC hasn’t ruled out such billing practices. What the ISPs have discovered is when applying them consumers rebel, forcing the ISPs to backtrack. The FCC isn’t the problem here, we are.

Ian Williams, of The Inquirer, notes that Jagdev also seems to think that the rules proposed by the FCC are new--they aren’t. Rather the FCC is trying to maintain the status quo. But this certainly isn’t Jagdev’s only misunderstanding of the FCC’s actions.

As Jagdev’s advice was offered without charge, it is safe to assume we got what we paid for.

Image Credit: markrabo/flickr, Nicholas Vigneron/Wickipedia Commons