Why the White House is backing away from Network Neutrality?

[Commentary] The Obama Administration and its allies at the Federal Communications Commission are retreating from a militant version of Network Neutrality regulations first outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in September.

Chairman Genachowski had initially described his vision for the future role of the FCC as a "smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet." Communications companies understood that to mean aggressive and detailed enforcement of rules that would, among other things, prohibit ISPs from offering premium, or "fast lane," services.

Downes cites an American Spectator article (see link below) saying that Obama advisor Susan Crawford left the White House in a row over how radical proposed Network Neutrality rules would be. At the Consumer Electronics Show, Crawford and White House deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin reminded the audience that the FCC had yet to determine whether net neutrality is needed to preserve the open Internet and characterized the proposing of the rules as simply opening a dialogue on the subject to allow the FCC to collect data.

Downes writes that the major carriers are making the investments, and have every business reason to make more. But the Net neutrality rules, depending on how the FCC defines key terms, could hamstring their efforts to make their money back. Net neutrality is making Wall Street uncomfortable about financing broadband deployment. That in turn is making the White House nervous. Net neutrality is turning out to be a noisy side show and a growing distraction from the real priority for both the White House and the FCC: getting the country wired for recovery.

[Larry Downes is a consultant and author, most recently of "The Laws of Disruption: Harnessing the New Forces that Govern Life and Business in the Digital Age." He is a nonresident fellow at the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society.]