Net Neutrality - Given a duopoly this is important in the USA while there has been much less concern elsewhere

[nt times] Neutrality has been great for Switzerland — and it could be for the Internet, too, say supporters of the idea that broadband providers should give equal priority to all digital traffic, from e-mail to bandwidth-hungry video.

U.S. regulators, unlike their counterparts elsewhere, have not generally required broadband providers to open their networks to competitors.
U.S. Web companies and consumer groups say that so-called network neutrality is essential to keeping the Internet open and wondrous. Without rules guaranteeing neutrality, they add, telecommunications providers might erect online tollbooths or obstruct Internet traffic in other ways.

Network operators argue that technology companies are getting a free ride; without the power to manage an ever-increasing flow of digital data, they say, the Internet will grind to a halt.

So, when news emerged of a nonaggression pact between Google, the biggest Internet company, and Verizon, a U.S. network operator, in which they endorsed some kinds of digital traffic management, the Internet erupted with calls for government action to guarantee network neutrality.

But instead of demanding new regulations, U.S. advocates of network neutrality ought to take a look abroad. They might find that there is another way to ensure that the Internet remains accessible, one that is more consistent with American laissez-faire business principles: competition.

Across much of Europe, consumers can choose among dozens of broadband providers, offering faster and less expensive Internet access than is available to most Americans. The situation is similar in Australia and in some advanced broadband markets in Asia, like Hong Kong and Singapore. Consumers who are unhappy with their broadband providers — if, for example, they suspect that their Internet use is not getting priority treatment — can simply switch.

In the United States, by contrast, many consumers can choose between only two broadband providers — one offering service over the phone lines, the other via cable. Others have no choice at all. U.S. regulators, unlike their counterparts elsewhere, have not generally required broadband providers to open their networks to competitors.

This fuels suspicions about the intentions of broadband providers, as well as the demands for network neutrality.

In Australia, by contrast, broadband providers openly flout network neutrality, and few people object. Broadband providers there manage traffic by putting caps on some kinds of Web use and by encouraging consumers to favor the services of selected Internet companies.

The debate has also been more muted in Europe. Yes, the European Commission recently opened a public consultation on the matter, and regulators in some European countries, like Britain and France, have followed suit.

But comments from European regulators suggest that there is little enthusiasm for neutrality mandates.

“Consumers should be able to access the content they want,” Neelie Kroes, the European commissioner in charge of digital policies, said in introducing the consultation. “Content providers and operators should have the right incentives to keep innovating. But traffic management and net neutrality are highly complex issues. I do not assume that one approach or another should prevail.”

In opening its study, the British Internet regulator, Ofcom, said, “We believe that there is insufficient evidence at present to justify the setting of blanket restrictions on all forms of traffic management.”

The Google-Verizon proposal acknowledges the power of competition, arguing that there is no need for neutrality on the wireless Internet because there is more rivalry among U.S. mobile network operators than among fixed-line broadband providers. (By contrast, Google and Verizon call for a neutrality mandate on the fixed-line Internet, with the exception of vaguely defined new broadband services.)

Cynics say this is just a convenient carving up that would protect both companies’ vested interests. But it highlights a bigger question: if competition is so effective, why not give the U.S. broadband business a taste of it, and leave neutrality to the Swiss?

A Better Way to Keep the Net Open and Accessible