A hearing to discuss data prioritization was conducted by the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and its importance in promoting internet functioning and growth.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn would like to know more about the topic and was saying that more realistic approach will be done during the hearing to give more color to the subject than focusing on banning it.
The founder of High Tech Forum, Richard Bennett, said the traditional regulatory model of the present internet structure doesn’t fit in separating content from communications as he gives credit to Amazon and Google. Peter Rysavy, the Research president, highlights its importance and usage to a lot of devices.
According to him, applications require different applications and quality of service requirements. The more unnatural limitations on the kind of applications that have been utilized, the less competitive the industry will be since the other countries who wish to dominate in a space that are not going to impair their technologies.
A better version of the 3G and 4G, 5G— the next and fifth generation mobile wireless standard, is the net network structure and classification. It is designed to manage different kinds of traffic flow, he elaborated, these include vehicles which are described to be self-ruling with crash-sensing and moderation, health biometric sensing and response, dedicated monitoring of critical physical infrastructure, and telemedicine.
Without prioritization, the applications mentioned are not possible to run since they require minimal delay and high reliability. Most importantly, on the part of the subscriber base, prioritization increases the experience quality. But, the standards imposed against prioritization will prevent investment incentives and service development endangering America’s leadership in 5G.
On the other hand, Michael Doyle started with his declaration that paid prioritization would benefit the internet service providers and their shareholders looking past the interest of the innovators and consumers.
Witnesses include Peter Rysavy, Richard Bennett, Paul Schroeder, Director of Public Policy and Strategic Alliances at Aira Tech; and Matt Wood, Policy Director at Free Press. Bennett, Rysavy, and Schroeder. Each one enumerated the essence of prioritization and how it will help consumers to maintain a market which is open to competition and opportunities.
In opposition to the paid prioritization, other members also explained their side. Doyle discussed the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval in which, the aim is to invalidate the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to “restore the internet freedom order.”
Last Tuesday, Richard Bennett, cited during the House Communications Subcommittee informational hearing on the practice, that paid prioritization is the obstacle to progress in creating a law to inaugurate new net neutrality rules in which both activists and the industry will be able to accept.
Bennett emphasized that it has always caused a confusion that paid prioritization, assumingly, deteriorates traditional applications such as video streaming online or email. He explained that traditional applications could tolerate differing speed in delivery because of buffering. The concept is that it involves an application’s fast lane will not impair another application’s slow lane.
Currently, the hearing is not linking paid prioritization to any specific legislation since the goal is mostly about fact-finding. Matt Wood, policy director for the media advocacy organization Free Press, said that because of the technical character of what they want to investigate, there might be more of a learning aspect.
During the hearing, the committee staff gave extra weight to understanding exactly how data moves on the internet in order to come up with a fair decision on how it should be regulated.