Broadband Policy, Net Neutrality, and the DMCA

    Three battles, in a larger fight, with the backdrop of the first amendment.  If all goes well the internet will stay neutral, while federal regulations ensure a faster and cheaper connection and more ISP's.  But if we lose, the consolidated corporate world will turn the internet into a premium priced luxury, like cable television.

Net Neutrality clarified

    First, I will address some of the confusion regarding the term 'Net neutrality'.  I've heard many advocates of a neutral internet blast 'net neutrality' for allowing corporate prioritizing and control.  I suspect this confusion is simply the result of applying that term, to cover the conflict in general, not necessarily one side of the coin or the other.  People hear 'net neutrality' and associate it with the controversy, not the idea.
    In fact the idea of network neutrality is simply that the internet be left alone; no WAN-level censorship, no packet forgery, and no prioritizing of bandwidth based on corporate interests (I will discuss this point later).  Opponents of net neutrality argue that imposing such regulation would "stifle innovation" and on the political side, it would be too much federal regulation and some believe a law of net neutrality is premature.  A less common argument against net neutrality, usually originating from the less informed, is that net neutrality essentially condones immorality on the internet because of the lack of censorship.  These arguments don't seem to take into account the prospect of U.S. Broadband policy, that could significantly advance broadband capabilities and enrich the market of ISP's, thus more capital would be allocated for researching the innovation of the medium, that opponents, despite their alignment with the anti-competitive telecom giants, seem to cry for (ironic site name, don't ya think?).
    Advocates of net neutrality argue that slowing or blocking access to content violates the first amendment of the constitution, and that service providers have no right to interfere with the network.  Proponents view the purposeful network interference as a hostile violation of free speech, and many see that because of the trend of consolidation in this industry, letting ISP's do with the internet as they please would stifle innovation by eliminating file-sharing sites, and pushing amateur and small business web developers out of business.  Not to mention the potential impact such would have on online gaming.

 The impact of U.S. Broadband policy

    That is to say, there is none.  I can't really say exactly why the U.S. has not adopted policy, some have attributed geographic challenges, or the high cost of broadband (though this explanation doesn't make any sense).  Lets take a look at the prices of broadband in the U.S. versus prices abroad:

Japan - average download speed is 63.6 Mbps; Lowest advertised price is $0.13 (~¥ 13.7) per megabit

Sweden - average download speed is 16.8 Mbps; Lowest advertised price is $0.35 (~Kr 2.11) per megabit

France - average download speed is 44 Mbps; lowest advertised price is $0.33 (~€ 0.21) per megabit

South Korea - average download speed is 43 Mbps; Lowest advertised price is $0.38 (~₩ 389.26) per megabit

United States - average download speed is 4.9 Mbps; Lowest advertised price is $2.83 per megabit. 

    This data begs the question: How do other nations do it?  The answer is government intervention, which may be why broadband policy is practically shunned in Washington.  Perhaps the policies abroad are viewed as socialistic here, and that term carries with it a bad reputation.  But this argument is not valid at all because the policies abroad do not 'regulate' broadband, they simply ensure that it is not regulated.  For example, in Japan, the government requires the larger telecoms to lay down fiber lines whether it is profitable or not and they enforce local loop unbundling so that competitors can emerge and stay competitive.  Unbundling is generally opposed by the giant telecoms because it allows competitors to use the same loops and "leech" off the incumbents, they would argue as well that such regulation stifles their innovation (see Net Neutrality Clarified) and that it is unhealthy for a free market.  All evidence to the contrary.

    If similar policy were drafted in the U.S., it would force the giant telecoms to compete with a much larger market of ISP's, thus prices would go down, rural penetration would go up, and fiber optic could finally emerge as a standard in this country.  Here's something to ponder:  If the the U.S. implemented broadband policy, would net neutrality be an issue at all?

Where the DMCA fits in

    This article is about a free internet, and together with broadband policy, net neutrality laws, and copyright policy reform, it can stay free.  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, represents, in my view, the manifestation of corporate greed, corporate personhood, and proprietary thinking (and it was drafted by WIPO, not the U.S. Congress).  It has been the justification for blocking internet content (see Net Neutrality Clarified), and in many cases it overrides basic copyright laws such as fair use, and first sale on the basis that somehow the Copyright Act of 1976 does not apply to electronic media.  The DMCA should be repealed in my opinion and on a side note, I think section 302 of the copyright act should be revised to limit the copyrights of the holder to lifetime plus none.