SXSWORLD

3 0 S X S W O R L D / M A R C H F I L M - I A 2 0 1 4 n early February, Dallas-based security software developer David Raphael found that he was experiencing a dramatic slowdown in downloading speeds when he was at home. Raphael ran speed tests that showed him his download speed from an AWS (Amazon's network, which hosts Netflix, among others) URL was 40kb/s com- pared to 5000kb/s from his office, a mile away. He then logged in to chat with a Verizon representative and seemed to get an admission that this was purposeful: "Yes, it is lim- ited bandwidth to cloud providers." While Verizon issued a statement contradicting the representative, saying, "We treat all traffic equally, and that has not changed," Raphael's experience encapsulates the most common scenario used to describe the consequences of the loss of net neutrality regulations: Your ISP will throttle your Netflix connection. In January, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down key provisions of the FCC's Open Internet Order of 2010, colloquially known as net neutrality. It did so while affirming the FCC's ability to regulate broadband infrastructure, including regulating traffic. And while the decision struck down the anti-discrimination and anti- blocking provisions that prescribed equal treatment for all data, it let stand the transparency requirement that mandated providers to disclose their practices. is meant that service providers could slow down or block service for certain types of traffic but would be required to let consumers know what they were doing. After the court's ruling, a group of House and Senate Democrats led by Representatives Henry Waxman and Anna Eshoo introduced the Open Internet Preservation Act, a legislative attempt to reinstate net neutrality while the FCC regroups. In a Republican- controlled House, the chances aren't great that this bill, sponsored entirely by Democratic legislators, will succeed, which highlights how partisan the issue has become. It's unsurprising, consid- ering the climate in Washington, said Maura Corbett, founder of the Glen Echo Group. "It's really unfortunate that it's been subsumed by politics when it really ought to be a conversation about how networks work and how they best advance the Internet and consumers and businesses," she said. e partisan divide on net neutrality is often put in free market terms by both sides, a problem of equal access to the market on one side and government regulation on the other. A joint statement from Representatives Fred Upton (R-MI) and Greg Walden (R-OR), the heads of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Communications and Technology Subcommittee, respectively, lauded the Court of Appeals decision: "is ruling stands up for consumers and providers alike by keeping the government's hands off the Internet." e court's decision still allows the FCC to regulate broadband but requires firmer legal ground. Because of the agency's previous choice to not classify broadband providers as common carriers, they are prohib- ited from treating them as such, according to the ruling's interpretation of the Communications Act. e FCC will have to either reclassify broadband to impose common carrier requirements or give net neu- trality requirements a different regulatory basis. ose in favor of net neutrality question the FCC's ability to act effectively as its preserver. e Electronic Frontier Foundation's April Glaser wrote in a late- January blog post: "e FCC in particular has a poor track record of regulating our communications ser- vices. We are not confident that Internet users can trust the FCC, or any government agency, with open- ended regulatory authority of the Internet." And opponents of net neutrality warn that it may hamper competition. "e marketplace now for broadband is, in my view, sufficiently competi- tive that you don't want to put a straitjacket on the Internet broadband providers. It may have the effect of stifling new investment in facilities," said Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation and former counsel to the FCC during the late '70s and early '80s. Although May is happy with the court's decision to strike down two of the three provisions the FCC had in place, he supports letting the transparency mandate stand. "I'm in favor of that type of requirement because then you're giving the consumer notice," he said. "Of course, the devil's in the details, the regulation has to go far enough to give the consumer adequate notice of what the practices are of the provider." For the time being, what happens next remains in the hands of the FCC. Corbett cautions that there might be businesses that aren't even aware they have a stake in the next iteration of net neutrality: "What if you have some sort of startup that's doing energy efficiency or healthcare or education and can't get to the end user unless they pay a toll or ask permission? ose are the guys that aren't represented in these debates." Raphael voices the thoughts of many consumers, that broadband is a utility, and you should get what you pay for or pay for what you use: "I pay for a 75Mbps connection," Raphael said. "e reason I pay for that connection is to ensure that I have fast access to all of the different Internet services I use. If one of those services happens to be consuming a disproportionate percentage of that traffic—I still expect to receive the bandwidth to that service that I've paid for." A simple requirement maybe, but one that will require regulatory complexity. n Several sessions at SXSW Interactive will touch on net neutrality, including "Net Neutrality: What Now?" in Ballroom E of the Austin Convention Center on Tuesday, March 11 at 9:30am. Recent Court Decision Shows Complexity of Net Neutrality Battle by Susan Elizabeth Shepard I It's really unfortunate that it's been subsumed by politics when it really ought to be a conversation about how networks work and how they best advance the Internet and consumers and businesses ... Maura Corbett

• Cover