2.+Stakeholders



The internet no longer exists on the fringes of society; It is now fully integrated and is inseparable from our social lives. Individuals and institutions now lead a dual existence, one in the physical world and one in the digital. As such, any change in the functioning of the internet would ripple across every member of society (weather he has direct access or not). The affects of such a change would not touch everyone equally however; there are a few clearly defined bodies of stakeholders: the government, the users, the producers, and the suppliers.

The key government players in the net neutrality debate are the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is charged with regulating all non-governmental use of the radio spectrum, including the Internet; and the Federal Trade Commission along with the Department of Justice, which enforce antitrust law. We have already seen that the FCC has been active in the resolution of this debate. The FTC on the other hand, does not have regulatory power; Instead it operates under the FCC policies. As such, the FTC urged policymakers in June 2007 to “ proceed with caution  in evaluating proposals to enact regulation in the area of broadband Internet access”, fearing possible unintended consequences for consumers. However, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin declared that he is “ ready, willing and able ” to prevent broadband internet service providers from interfering with access to any specific content. Thus, the FTC and DOJ can conceivably prosecute telecom companies under any net neutrality laws, if enacted.

Big media and entertainment companies (the producers), which controlled information, knowledge, and culture for much of the twentieth century, are opponents of net neutrality. Their content is invariably affected by any regulations dictating the flow of information. The most profitable avenue for the media companies would be partnerships with the ISPs, which would allow them exclusive rights; thus decreasing competition, increasing profits and generally assuring their unhindered dominance as the already established major content providers.

Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessing, an influential spokesperson for Internet users and creativity in general, argues that net neutrality policies are important for empowering users. The user's position in this debate is unique to the medium. The internet user is no longer a passive consumer; instead he is an active creator, challenging the authority of the major producers. Net neutrality policies could prevent telecom companies from restricting access to blogs, wikis, and independent podcasts, which would once again relegate the user to a simple consumer. CAP fellow Mark Lloyd has also suggested that net neutrality policies would benefit public education, health, and safety, as it ensures equal access to the Internet’s content.

Finally, the companies that own the physical pipes of the Internet, argue that they have the right to control the use of those pipes in such a way that is most profitable to them. David Farber, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University, has also argued that giving telecom companies the freedom to experiment, without the restrictions of net neutrality policies, could encourage unanticipated innovations on their part, which might benefit other stakeholders. The telecom companies also claim that government regulation may hinder return on investments, deterring them from expanding the broadband infrastructure. Congress will have to address these competing views as the net neutrality debate begins to intensify in the coming months. The new net neutrality bill, which is backed by Internet giants such as Google and Amazon, is garnering more attention in the public sphere than previous legislation's attempts, and could signal a new battle between net neutrality advocates and detractors.