The Net Neutrality Debate

Tom Mattson, Assistant Professor of Management, University of Richmond, Robins School of BusinessWe have heard many "end of the world" commentaries as a result of the FCC’s repeal of the net neutrality rules. Although my personal preference is to have a neutral internet, I also do not believe that this legislation is the end of the world or the internet is truly over. The current regulatory environment in the U.S. has yielded a costly and slow internet, which is also not great for internet-based innovations. Moreover, we have never really had a truly neutral internet, and that environment has yielded some amazing innovations. Therefore, it is important for panicked individuals and organizations to take a step away from the ledge.The net neutrality debate has been in a continual state of flux for the past decade or more. Arguably, this state of flux has adversely impacted the service providers, innovators, entrepreneurs, consumers and IT managers more than either the 2015 or the 2017 legislation. Not knowing or continuously changing regulations is probably the worst scenario for all parties (irrespective of whether they are in favor of or against net neutrality). Long-term investments in technological infrastructure, whether those are being made by a cloud service provider or an internet service provider, require some degree of regulatory certainty due to the long-term nature of those investments. High uncertainty makes it difficult for organizations to engage in multi-year technological investments.Maybe I am just naïve, but I believe if internet service providers such as Comcast or Verizon engage in anti-competitive practices (such as completely banning an app or extorting a group of entrepreneurs for fast lane access for a ridiculously high price), then we have the necessary checks and balances in place where those service providers will be adequately punished for those anti-competitive practices. Just ask Microsoft whether it was in their best long-term interest to act in an anti-competitive manner in the 1990s. Microsoft was justly punished for shutting out competitors and I am confident that an Internet Service Provider who similarly shuts out competitors will be justly punished. I firmly believe that the “my operating system” and “my lines” arguments are not valid reasons to act in an anti-competitive manner.The greater problem is that a vast majority of Americans have no choice in their internet service providers. We have to create an environment that will promote competition for ISPs for all, which will benefit the entire marketplace. Instead of the continuous debate around net neutrality, it might be more productive to debate ways in which America can create a more competitive environment for ISPs relative to the monopoly or duopoly that exists in many areas of the country. More competition will promote more innovation and another check in the system against internet service providers engaging in anti-competitive business practices. [author]About the Author: Tom Mattson is an assistant professor of management in the University of Richmond’s Robins School of Business. His research focuses on information security, social interactions in electronic networks of practice, virtual communities of practice and other electronic social structures. [/author]