Managing traffic on the ’Net

What should move faster over the Internet - an ambulance emergency call or someone's personal music download? A transfer of banking funds or a routine e-mail?

Such obvious priorities are determined by Internet provider companies who manage networks. Through tiered levels of service, traffic and applications on the information highway are directed.

Now the Federal Communications Commission is proposing two new rules that supporters say is needed to protect access to the Internet - ensuring what's called “net neutrality.” We're skeptical that these rules are needed. Indeed, we worry they could lead to degradation of quality and service.

The FCC proposals:

1) Non-discrimination - all content sent on the Internet could be treated the same.

2) More transparency of networks' traffic management practices.

Keep in mind that every piece of the Internet is owned by companies who operate networks and sell access and services to content providers and users, large and small, private and public. These providers include cable and telecommunications and wireless providers.

Many of these providers object to the FCC's proposals, saying they would thwart traffic management and inhibit investment in more broadband capacity.

They also point to the explosive growth of the Internet and related devices, social networking applications such as Facebook and Twitter and multimedia sites such as YouTube and Hulu - while access speeds have greatly increased as the cost has dropped.

In other words, things are working pretty darn well. Why jeopardize that with more government regulation?

We think providers are right to be concerned.

While the government should keep an eye on Internet access and affordability, we don't see any reason now for regulation that would lead to more government control.

The Internet already is open and developing at a rapid pace largely because of private competition that works to meet customers' demands.

As Dawn Ainger of Genova Technologies in Cedar Rapids told us, providers are managing networks competently and she fears “data anarchy” if non-discrimination in content is strictly enforced by government regulation.

And if the transparency rule requires providers to jeopardize security, then timely, secure delivery of data such as telemedicine applications could be compromised. That's especially important in rural areas that have health care shortages.

We urge the FCC to make sure its efforts to ensure openness don't wind up restricting the private investment and innovation that makes the Internet efficient and responsive. Instead, encourage development of more broadband capacity and more availability in rural areas where it's critical to economic development and health care services.