Keeping the Net neutral

[Commentary] Preserving network neutrality — that is, preventing the companies that provide the Internet's infrastructure from picking winners and losers among websites and online services — may sound like the tech-industry equivalent of protecting motherhood and apple pie, but policymakers in Washington can't seem to agree on whether to do it, let alone how. This week, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski laid out another proposal, this time using an ill-fated bill drafted by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) as its foundation. The details remain to be seen, but the framework is a good one.

The Waxman draft, which was backed by a number of telecommunications and Web-based companies, was designed largely to continue the status quo online: It would have allowed Internet providers to manage their networks within reasonable limits, but not to block legal content, applications or devices. Its most controversial provision would have barred Internet providers from discriminating unreasonably against any lawful type of traffic, which some critics complained would limit innovative business models and traffic-management technology. The provision was neither as vague nor as restrictive as it sounded, however. A similar requirement has long applied to telephone networks, so its meaning has clarified over the years. And the ban wouldn't stop Internet providers from experimenting with new business models, such as creating premium tiers or charging customers based on the amount of data they send and receive. That's a reasonable approach, provided that the rules don't permit broadband providers to undermine their standard Internet offerings in favor of their premium tiers.