Editor’s note: Uyless Black was working with the internet when it was called ARPANET. He has consulted and lectured on data networks and the internet in 14 countries and written more than 30 books on these subjects. He resides in Hayden with his wife, Holly.

By UYLESS BLACK

Special to The Press

In the Cd’A Press editions of July 31 and Aug. 1, 2014, I wrote about the issue of internet net neutrality. This material was written before the FCC, under then-President Obama, published its 2015 rulings on the subject.

I wrote that most internet users were confused about internet net neutrality because the FCC — and the industry — did not describe accurately the roles of different Internet vendors.

An initial exposure to these organizations can be confusing. Yet, they are at the heart of the net neutrality debate. So here is a summary:

Channel provider: Owns the physical media, such as cable, telephone wires, and wireless cellular channels. Examples are Frontier and Verizon.

Content provider: Provides the content that is placed on the physical media, but does not own the media. Examples are Netflix, Google, and Facebook.

Channel and content provider: A combination of 1 and 2. Examples are Time Warner, Comcast, and AT&T.

In the 2014 articles, I explained why a vendor that provided both the physical channel and its content presented a danger to vendors who only provided content, but did not own the channel.

To repeat the danger: The channel/content provider could favor its content, say a streaming service, over the streaming service of a content-only provider. Given the American way of conducting business, the content-only provider could be frozen-out of the market, with the channel/content provider assuming a monopoly position and resultant higher prices.

I discussed other dangers as well:

(a) Discriminating between different types of traffic. For example: voice and video.

(b) Blocking competitors’ traffic and/or throttling competitors’ traffic. For example, Spectrum vs. Hulu

(c) Special prices for special services. For example, charging more for high-volume users (with which I happen to agree).

The 2015 FCC Rulings

The 2015 FCC rulings, in what it calls “Clear, Bright-Line Rules,” forbids an internet vendor from blocking or throttling any user’s traffic, The rulings also forbid the provision of better service at higher charges (paid prioritization).

2017 Rulings

In the Cd’A Press edition of Oct. 26, 2017, it was revealed the FCC, spearheaded by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, means to “roll back ownership rules that were meant to support diverse voices in local media.”

Last week, the FCC voted to do away with many restrictions on media ownership. It voted to eliminate a rule established in 1975 which prevents companies from owning a TV or radio station and a newspaper in the same market. It also voted to allow one company to own multiple TV stations in one market (see http://cnnmon.ie/2zNsynS).

Mr. Pai stated the reason for taking these actions is partially because these media are struggling while internet competitors are thriving.

Mr. Pai is supported by Dennis Wharton, the head of the National Association of Broadcasters. Mr. Wharton stated the FCC limitations on ownership have hurt TV broadcasters.

He further says rolling back the “FCC limits will allow companies that own TV stations to get bigger.”

The second part of this analysis will expand on the issue of competition among the Internet vendors and the thoughts of the FCC chairman and the head of the National Association of Broadcasters.