Who exactly is a broadband common carrier?

I have a celebrity crush on Mark Cuban.  Not only is he a smart, snarky Shark Tank star – he really knows how to make a point.  His recent statement about net neutrality is a perfect example, “The government will f**k the Internet up,” he said.  I fear he’s right.  Here’s why. 

As a rural tech entrepreneur I was surprised last November when President Obama weighed in on the net neutrality debate. And as a former telecom regulatory attorney who spent a lot of time working on issues around the Communications Act, I was truly alarmed when the president declared his support for classifying broadband as a common carrier service under Title II of the Act.  Title II comprises 102 pages of a complicated statute mostly written more than 80 years ago, in a very different era and long before Facebook, Skype, Tumblr, and all the mobile apps we’re now hooked on were even thought possible. 

{mosads}Under the president’s proposal, countless companies offering varying degrees of broadband transmission services would be required to abide by or at least comprehend complex Title II requirements that could stall, or even halt, today’s booming investment and innovation.  Changing the rules would add uncertainty into today’s vibrant tech arena and could very well be a bonanza for regulatory attorneys as companies both large and small struggle to understand who might be deemed a “broadband common carrier” and what that means for their business and customers going forward.

The proposed inclusion of wireless broadband will require such a convoluted interpretation of the statute that wireless innovation and infrastructure deployment will undoubtedly suffer during the decade of legal wrangling that will surely follow if they are subject to common carrier requirements. Litigation creates uncertainty; uncertainty slows down investment and innovation – the combination of these factors creates a lose-lose situation for entrepreneurs and consumers alike.

In a new infographic, “The Game of Startup Life,” Mobile Future shows some of the potential challenges looming ahead. The piece plays on the popular board game “LIFE”- and highlights a number of setbacks the average mobile-based startup might face in an uncertain Title II world. While the one step forward, two steps back analogy is a great illustration of the difficulties mobile entrepreneurs will face under Title II, the impact of reclassification is no game and could have devastating effects on the future of mobile innovation.

While much is still unknown or in flux, what we do know is that edge providers, WISPs, CLECs, Skype, resellers, and even incumbent Internet giants, could be affected. Case in point, the complaint process authorized by the statute allows just about any company seeking to gain some regulatory advantage to lodge a complaint about almost any company that’s involved in common carrier communications, subjecting them to an expensive and lengthy legal proceeding that invariably diverts resources and attention from their revenue generating business.  These innovation-killing distractions should not be taken lightly.

We all support an open Internet, but we should all recognize that net neutrality done wrong will have the effect of slowing broadband deployment everywhere, and particularly in small towns and rural communities across the U.S. 

Why President Obama and some in the tech world believe that imposition of an outdated statute, overseen by a clunky federal agency, with lengthy review timeframes, will somehow protect the lightning fast, innovation-centric Internet of 2015 is a mystery to me.  I think Mark Cuban sees it far more clearly. 

Smith is the CEO of American Rural and serves on the Advisory Board of Mobile Future.  She was a co-founder and chief executive officer of an IPTV and advanced media services company in Kalispell, Montana and serves on boards of tech companies nationwide.