Businesses should oppose net neutrality because they need ISPs to...

Hal Singer. Until now, the net neutrality debate has largely focused on how broadband consumers would be affected by it, they said. The Google-Verizon framework represents a large step in the right direction, the economists said. It would bolster the FCC’s authority to enforce its open-Internet principles based on Congressional authority, establish the concept of a case-by-case approach, forbid the agency from promulgating detailed rules on the kind of conduct that is permitted, and immunize wireless ISPs from any net neutrality requirements, the op-ed said. Despite the important advances, the proposed framework has one significant drawback: It advocates a “presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic -- including paid prioritization,” it said. “This is a mistake.” That would mean that no enhanced service offerings would be permitted unless an ISP could prove it wasn’t discriminating, it said. All deals for priority delivery would be presumptively procompetitive, which would place the burden of proof on the complaining content provider, it said. In particular, a content provider who objected to some ISP conduct would have to prove it has been discriminated against on the basis of affiliation, and as a result of that discrimination the content provider had been materially impaired in its ability to compete against the affiliated network, Litan and Singer wrote. In the meantime, they wrote, ISPs would be free to contract -- at a “positive price” -- with content providers for enhanced services offerings.