| |
|
I've
discussed the notion of common carriage more than once in my previous
blogs. The context in which the FCC applies its terminology to
"common carriers" is known as Title I or II regulation. An excellent
overview of how this applies to net neutrality can be found here.
What's really at stake with the Multi-Tier Internet? It really comes
down the economic model and how the profits are split between the
distribution and content providers in the value chain. Under a Title I
"model", the carriers, or ISPs are required to adhere to common
carriage principles. As I reviewed previously,
these principles require the ISPs to offer "fair, reasonable and
non-discriminatory" access to their networks. Of course, some of these
terms could be interpreted subjectively. As such, the US executive
branch, through the FCC, has been
chosen to enforce the law while our courts interpret it. If
the ISPs don't have to act like common carriers such as Inn Keepers,
railroads, utilities, and other regulated monopolies, then under Title
I status, these ISPs can strike any business deal they want with the
content providers.
In economic terms, this "great debate"comes
down to whether the content providers will have to sign contracts
with content distributors (or access networks) that form preferred and
potentially discriminatory business relationships. These agreements
might include revenue or profit splitting arrangements whereby the ISPs
would provide severely preferential treatment to specific content
providers. As such, the net neutrality proponents have a valid and very
real concern.
The InterStream Escrowed Settlement Agreement (ESA)
adheres to the principles of common carriage. Therefore, net
neutrality advocates should sleep comfortably knowing that an implicit
Title II model will be in place for the access network providers.
Jeff Turner
|
|
|
