Business & Economy

Vermont tech companies welcome FCC’s net neutrality stance

Peter Welch
Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., listens as technology industry experts talk about the importance of Internet neutrality Friday at Local 64 in Montpelier. Photo by Tom Brown/VTDigger

A group of Vermonters whose lives and work depend on 21st century innovation are rallying behind a 19th century model. Sort of.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler recently announced that the FCC was backing so-called “net neutrality” by recommending that Internet service providers be regulated as a public utility, somewhat like the legacy telephone companies.

His decision to include large ISPs, such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, under Title II of the Telecommunications Act has been celebrated as a victory for those who favor equal access to the Internet and oppose a “fast lane” for premium subscribers.

Under the FCC proposal, providers would not be able to charge more for a second, faster tier of Internet service; would not be allowed to throttle, or slow down, Internet speeds; or block access to any legal website. Unlike its role with telephone service providers, the FCC would not regulate customer rates charged by ISPs. Wheeler’s plan would also apply to wireless providers for the first time.

The FCC decision to regulate Internet providers as telecommunications companies rather than information suppliers is bound to end up in court and will face ideological obstacles in Congress as well, experts say. AT&T and Verizon have already indicated they will sue, according to news reports.

“There will be a battle between a lot of the corporate businesses and a pushback from big Internet providers about any kind of role for FCC,” Rep. Peter Welch said Friday. “Some see Title II as excessive regulation, I see it as a guarantee of access and protection.”

In reaction to the FCC decision, Welch, D-Vt., gathered a panel of technology leaders in Montpelier to discuss the importance of fair and equal access to the Internet.

Wheeler’s position was good news to the group, who believe innovation and creativity would have been stifled if Internet providers were allowed to give preference to certain customers, advertisers or content producers.

Creating a premium Internet service would cause companies that rely on the Web to pay more and could stymie small startups that might be unable to compete in sectors where the large ISPs have essentially picked technology winners.

For example, if a provider were to offer a certain music streaming platform free (i.e. not counted against a user’s data limit) then there might be less incentive for developers to explore new applications.

“It’s about fairness,” said Lisa Groeneveld, COO and co-founder of Logic Supply, a South Burlington company that builds customized computer hardware.

“Our company’s motto is open, fair, independent and innovative,” Groeneveld said. “If you allow someone to pay for better access over the Internet, you’re basically allowing someone to go 65 in a 55 mph zone. You deny access to services that people need to grow their business.”

Welch’s roundtable discussion was held at Montpelier’s Local 64, a co-working office space, and included participants from Laboratory B, Designbook, Ringmaster Software and others.

Many said the Internet has become a necessary utility and a basic human and economic need. They also questioned what their businesses would actually get if they paid for two-tiered service.

“If I have a telephone number and Comcast has a telephone number and Comcast’s phone rings every time someone calls and mine rings one out of five calls, that’s a problem,” said Jeme Brelin of the tech incubator Burlington Generator.

The small business owners, designers and gamers said their success and innovation depends on a level playing field.

“My concern is competitive,” Groenveld said. If I can’t reach my customer in the way that they need me to reach them, and I have to pay to do it, I will pay to do it. That just means I will have less revenue to share with my employees and partners.”

If you read us, please support us.

Comment Policy requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer.

We moderate every comment. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

Tom Brown

Recent Stories

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Vermont tech companies welcome FCC’s net neutrality stance"
  • Pete Novick

    Here’s a link to Joe Nocera’s article in the NYT (2/6/15) which provides much useful background.


    • John McClaughry

      Isn’t that the Joe Nocera who described Tea Party members as terrorists?

      • Jason Farrell

        Yes. The same Joe Nocera who, days later, apologized for doing having done so. Here’s a quote from the apology:

        “The words I chose were intemperate and offensive to many, and I’ve been roundly criticized. I was a hypocrite, the critics said, for using such language when on other occasions I’ve called for a more civil politics. In the cool light of day, I agree with them. I apologize.”

  • Paul Richards

    Yet another government takeover and loss of individual rights. Say goodbye to the internet as we know it if the government gets their hands on it. They will do anything for a buck to feed their crack addiction like need to take more money from us. It’s all in the name of fairness. The road to hell is paved with good intensions.

  • David Usher

    To regulate Internet Service Providers, both wireline and wireless, in the manner that monopoly telephone companies were regulated prior to the development of the Internet is bad public policy.

    Pretended harm to the ‘little guy’ when no credible evidence that such harm exists from the “big guys,” is a poor reason to encourage the heavy hand of regulation.

    The Internet is too young, dynamic and valuable to the marketplace of information and ideas to impose the heavy hand of government regulation.

    Congress and the courts should prevent the FCC from imposing Title II regulation on ISPs, large or small, wireline or wireless.