Net neutrality not so simple

The following abridged versions of Northwest editorials do not necessarily reflect the view of The Spokesman-Review’s editorial board.

The Columbian, Vancouver, June 16

Here is one way of simplifying the issue of “net neutrality”: Should broadband internet service be treated by regulators as a public utility?

That boils down the subject that was decided Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which ruled 2-1 in favor of guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. The guidelines support net neutrality, which essentially is the notion that internet providers must treat all web traffic equally. The ruling prevents providers from offering preferential treatment to sites willing to pay for faster service.

Proponents of the ruling say it is a victory for consumers, and President Obama has expressed support for the FCC rules. And yet an examination of the issue reveals that “net neutrality” is not the panacea its name suggests.

The problem with treating broadband internet service like a public utility such as water service or an electric company is that the entities have little in common. An electric company is, almost by definition, a monopoly.

But internet providers are not limited to a service area defined by physical or geographical boundaries. They are essentially universal, available in any location they choose to reach.

The drawback to that heavy-handed regulation is that it places a yoke around innovation by high-tech companies. Allowing higher charges for faster internet speeds would be consistent with a policy that attracts increased investment.

Not that the issue can be effectively summarized in one brief newspaper editorial. It is a complex one with strong arguments to be made on both sides, and it is one of those that garners little attention from the public but will have vast implications for consumers.

Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, June 10

The concerns about the long-term health effects of electronic cigarettes are legitimate. But given the recent upswing in cases of exploding e-cigarettes, the short-term safety of the devices seems a more immediate concern.

The Seattle Times reported that devastating burns caused by exploding e-cigarette batteries have continued to climb at Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center. At least 14 victims have been treated or hospitalized over the past nine months.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products identified 92 reports of e-cigarettes overheating, igniting or exploding between 2009 and September 2015.

Clearly oversight is needed. And that’s coming as the FDA takes over the task. The focus, to this point, has been primarily the health effects of inhaling the chemicals. Taking steps to protect people from the devices exploding must take place immediately.