Bartees Cox

As Public Knowledge reflects upon the recent NETmundial multi-stakeholder meeting in Brazil, it is clear that for all its faults, the meeting in Sao Paulo was a turning point for Internet governance and human rights in the digital environment.

For the first time in such a meeting, all the stakeholders were not only “at the table” but, to some extent, drivers of the agenda, drafting, and outcomes. The process itself was open to the Internet, whether it was for scathing criticism or simply curious engagement via video streaming.

[Commentary] There are a few reasons why the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet proposal doesn’t quite go far enough in creating strong network neutrality rules.

I’d like to concentrate on one in particular. The FCC’s proposal invites Internet Service Providers to choose winners and losers online. Even though the proposal explicitly says that ISPs will not be able to block or discriminate against websites, the commercial reasonableness standard within the new proposal leads one to believe otherwise.

The baseline concept of network neutrality prevents discrimination and traffic bias. But the concept of commercial reasonableness is steeped in discrimination and bias.

It’s very difficult to see how this standard, which inherently offers less protection than the previous Open Internet Rules, can serve the same policy goals. And from a competitive standpoint, there are a slew of reasons that large ISPs have to avoid partnerships with their competitors. Point blank, the new proposal offers less protection than the previous Open Internet Rules.

Additionally, the FCC’s call to approach discrimination on a case-by-case basis creates uncertainty, and disadvantages small businesses and entrepreneurs.

[Cox is the director of media relations at Public Knowledge]