FCC Rules ISPs Are A Utility

The internet is now classified as a regulated utility and net neutrality is enabled.  Certainly, for content creators and consumers, content must now flow freely and equally to your devices.  But what was the problem and do these regulations really solve them.  Weren't we getting access to all our content already?  Did you really see that certain content was not getting to you? 

While nothing will change immediately, what will not be a surprise will be how many lawsuits will arise to fight this new law before it can initiate.  Given how long it takes decisions to get through the court system, it should be tied up for quite a while.  The greatest example is the Janet Jackson Super Bowl example regarding on air decency.  That case took years to finally decide that there was no fine to be levied.  Still it clogged up the courts.  So too will this new internet regulation law.

The hope is that during that time that new innovation arises to improve speed and efficiency of broadband, new competitors grab a share of the marketplace via a wired and wireless approach, and that the fast pace of change in this industry makes the law irrelevant before it has time to take effect.  My biggest concern is that regulation only slows down innovation and growth, doesn't drive a competitive marketplace, or lower prices.  Yes, net neutrality as a concept is a good thing; all content should be able to reach its destination as fast as possible.  But wrapped in other regulations, the internet as a communication highway only gets hurt more. 

Net Neutrality Vote

Lately, our cell phone provider has been sending us messages telling us that we are reaching our covered monthly limit on our internet usage.  And the culprits tend to be our kids who forget to turn on their WIFI on their cell phones to watch You Tube or Netflix.  Truth is there are a limited number of providers for broadband service and so prices continue to rise.  Cable operators have done the best job of delivering high speed broadband service across a majority of the nation.  Telephone companies have managed with DSL service but it doesn't deliver the same speed as cable.  In some markets, FIOS and U-verse have overbuilt larger cities with alternative high speed service, many with fiber right to the home.  And some regional providers like RCN, WOW, and other also offer cable, broadband, and phone. 

But newer competition is rare.  The biggest entrant so far has been Google Fiber, starting first in Kansas City and expanding into a few other markets.  After that you have cell phone companies with data plans that get quickly used up on video consumption.  I know from firsthand experience.  Their speed is also no match to cable yet but the hope is that they can become a better provider. 

Today, broadband, like food, water and shelter, is being treated very much like a utility and so the government seems determined to regulate it as one.  Hence the vote today by the FCC to reclassify broadband service as such and assure that that all content delivered across the internet is delivered identically, whether a video stream or email message.  That is net neutrality.  But the concern of big government regulation in business is that it limits new entrants, innovation, and disruption. 

Consumers have very little choice in deciding what broadband service provider to use.  Where we live determines who is capable of supporting us.  Cable operators still strike franchise agreements to exclusively cover cities and towns.  More competition is needed.  New spectrum needs to be opened up.  Investments in technology to increase speed and capacity should be encouraged.  Net neutrality laws may seem like a short term fix but not a long term solution.  And as we continue to become a more connected universe, it is the long term that is more at stake. 

Could Net Neutrality Regulation Hurt Innovation?

As the FCC ponders enacting tough new laws on equal access to the internet, many wonder if government interference and tight regulations will instead choke the technology and limit growth.  Many look at other utility companies and the effect regulation has had to stifle innovation.  There are arguments on both sides depending on who benefits from FCC involvement.  Still, one hates to see a free economy hampered when government controls the business decisions surrounding the internet's development and evolving growth.

Is the current internet broken that net neutrality laws are necessary to fix?  Or can competition from wire and wireless providers create a better industry to drive innovation and growth.  While the current industry may be deemed too much an oligopoly, the FCC might better spend its time enabling companies to invest in alternative infrastructures.  Google, for one, is slowly building alternative internet pipelines in certain markets.  Opening new spectrum for wireless internet is another opportunity to enhance market competition.  Push tax benefits for those companies that make investments that improve the accessibility and reliability of networks. 

Laws and regulations that restrict do little to drive growth in the marketplace.  Time and time again we have seen our public utilities challenged with a heavy government hand that slows decision making to a crawl and limits the ability to upgrade and support new technological improvement.  More should be done to propel our internet infrastructure to 21st century standards, but regulation does not seem to be the right move. 

Broadband To Be Considered A Utility Service

As our President faces the last 2 years of office, he no longer has to worry about reelection, rather about his legacy.  And so, as it pertains to the world of the web, he is pushing all out for full net neutrality.  Like water, electricity, and gas and oil to the home, Obama and the FCC want to regulate broadband service just as fiercely. 

Net neutrality assures that no matter what the content, whether a simple email message or full HD video, the internet would treat both pieces of data exactly the same, transmitting them at the same speed as everything else.  No blocking of content, no throttling or slow down of speed of certain data.  All will be treated exactly the same.

But it is that same heavy use of government oversight and regulation that can also slow down or even stop a free economy from doing what it does best, innovate to create new solutions to old problems.  With such freedom comes new opportunities, new industries, and new businesses.  But add government to the mix and while data is free, innovation may be what gets throttled instead.  That is certainly the line that broadband providers like Comcast and others fear buy a heavily regulated broadband industry.

Content creators and other users of the web hope that net neutrality assures that their work gets equal access and that they do not have to resort to paying broadband providers to get into the HOV lane.  Netflix agreed to pay providers to assure that their subscription service wasn't penalized; they would love to not have to pay for play. 

Is there a middle ground that assures equal access without over regulating the process?  Ultimately, a solution is needed.  Broadband access has become more essential to the home then ever before.  Some might even rank it above heat and water.  Still, at the end of the day, what is most needed is to lower barriers to entry in broadband platforms and encourage more competition.  That is ultimately what will enable consumers to find the best possible value for the best price. 

Net Neutrality Laws Not The Answer

Do we have a problem with our internet, the simple answer is yes.  But regulating access to assure that all content gets equal access may not be the correct course.  As many like to say, too much government interference, limits growth, and if treated like a utility, would hamper innovation.  Our problem is not that some traffic on the internet superhighway gets clogged; rather, that the whole highway is a traffic jam.

As the Huffington Post pointed out last month, "Americans pay far more and get far less when it comes to the Internet than many other people around the world." Broadband connectivity in the United States is more expensive than other countries and our overall speeds are slower, too.  With more and more devices trying to get online, the highway can come to a noticeable stop.  In my home, watching a video on a tablet causes other computers in the house to stop loading web content.  Too many users on a cable broadband line slows overall speeds. 

How do we improve the broadband highway.  Not through regulation, but by lowering the barrier to competition.  Eliminate cable franchises and open spectrum.  Let overbuilding encourage more competition.  More competition drives better pricing models and gives consumers more choice.  Too much regulation is not the answer.  We've recognized the problems but need better solutions. 

Obama Wants Net Neutrality

With two years left on his presidency, President Obama has decided now is the time to speak out on net neutrality.  He has asked the FCC to pursue full net neutrality and to enable free and equal internet traffic for all.  Whether a data heavy, video driving site like Netflix or a low graphics, easy downloaded website, consumers should be able to access both equally as fast.  No HOV lanes, no slow downs by ISPs.  I'm almost surprised that he didn't try to have all broadband as a utility, subject to the same rules as water, gas, and electric.

The real challenges for the US regarding internet access are speed and price.  Shouldn't more be done to encourage wire and wireless competition.   Is net neutrality the better policy course to driving innovation and superior service?  Shouldn't the FCC focus instead on opening up more spectrum for more ISPs to enter and compete for users.  If internet speeds can be improved, then all traffic will thrive, whether they are in a slower or faster lane.  Then how fast any one piece of content is over another will be meaningless if there is no perceptible difference. 

Does Wireless Need Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality has been a hot topic.  While the FCC attempts to revise its rules, many are still unclear what it all means.  In essence, net neutrality for the internet means that all web sites would have equal access to consumers accessing them, whether the data is light use email or heavy use video streaming.  Netflix, leading the way with heavy usage, has made deals with cable companies to assure that it gets premiere broadband access.  And while they can afford it, many argue that lack of net neutrality favors big business at the expense of start up web companies.

But as net neutrality rules are being reworked, you would be surprise to hear that these rules have been strictly toward wired broadband connections.  The mobile space has been mainly unregulated in the broadband space.  According to the NY Times, that exemption is being reviewed.  "On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission will hold a round-table discussion to examine whether proposed net neutrality rules should cover mobile broadband."  With so many consumers accessing the web through their cellular connections verse a WIFI one, it is hard to believe that the two platforms were being treated differently. 

Technological change as wireless carriers have upgraded their systems has led to such a move. And again, according to the NY Times, "Now, with advanced LTE networks complete, a growing portion of consumers use mobile as their primary method of connecting to the Internet, meaning a wireless exemption would leave those consumers without net neutrality protection."  And as younger consumers cut the cord on cable connections, their cellular subscription becomes their primary communication, information, and entertainment portal."  If my children didn't have access to WIFI inside the house, they would definitely be using their cellular connection.  In fact, I sometimes check that their smartphones are still connected to the WIFI so that our cell bill doesn't get impacted.

Does wireless need net neutrality?  All broadband, whether wireless or wired, should be treated similarly.  While I oppose to much government regulation and prefer an open economy to manage supply and demand, broadband has become as essential a basic right as shelter, food, and the right to education.  I would prefer that the FCC spend more time lowering the barrier to entry to enable more companies to compete in the broadband space.  The rise of competition is the best means to assure consumers right to choose a source for their broadband connection. 

To Better Compete, FIOS Improves Broadband

Verizon FIOS has a competitive advantage over cable; its broadband speed, mainly because of fiber to the home, is greater than cable's coaxial connections.  And as customers seeks more streaming media to view and upload more content to the cloud, the faster the connection, the better the experience.  FIOS can, with minimal investment, support that objective by increasing its upload speed to match its download speed.  "FiOS says the rollout should be done by the fall, and 95% of customers will receive it automatically."  And FIOS says this enhancement is being delivered at no additional charge.

While concern over net neutrality still mounts, most customers really just care that their content is accessible, without delay, when they want it.  When they encounter buffering, no matter what the reason, it creates a bad user experience.  The more speeds are improved, no matter the content, no matter the direction, the better the customer will value the service. 

FIOS growth has been slowing while cable operators have seen gains as well in broadband customers.  But as broadband continues to become more valuable than cable, FIOS may have the advantage when marketing superior broadband speed.  And while upload speed may not yet be as important as download speed, the need is coming.  Cable operators need to push more investment into improving their lines. The total broadband experience matters and slow internet only frustrates consumers who then start looking for a new provider. 

Why Net Neutrality Matters

A funny take on a very real issue.  

FCC Listening To Net Neutrality Comments

With the rise in merger activity likely affecting the future of broadband, there is no doubt that the FCC is taking a serious look at net neutrality.  Net neutrality requires that all digital content, whether it is e-mail or streaming content from Netflix, be handled the same way with equal access through the pipeline to the consumer.  And while some net neutrality remains in effect, some wonder whether there has been some throttling where some content essentially is able to bump ahead in the line. 

This Multichannel article provides an interesting take on what FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler is facing.  First, John Oliver overwhelmed the FCC website with his take on the issue a few weeks ago and consumers continue to flood the site with comments.  According to the article, they have received over 600,000 comments and are extending the deadline to handle the influx. 

Issues regarding net neutrality verse the creation of HOV or high frequency toll lanes for those that pay more lay at the heart of the discussion.  So too the notion of reclassification of broadband as a utility, like electricity and water, could hurt growth of the industry.  A better broadband system requires a better infrastructure and that requires capital.  More competition is also required to enable consumers to choose their broadband provider and allow competition to help lower pricing.  And lastly disruptive technological innovation that improves speed and reliability is important as well.  Governmental regulation tends to limit growth not engage it.  How much the FCC tinkers could affect all these efforts. 

Merger Mania Adds Another Pair

The FCC will have a busy Summer and perhaps the rest of the year too.  Not only do they get to review the Comcast Time Warner Cable and ATT DirecTv deals, they may also get the proposed Sprint T-Mobile merger as well.  Quick, hire more staff, the FCC will have their plate full.  They may have seen their webaite explode after the John Oliver call to write them regarding net neutrality.  And should a cable network consider announcing a possible acquisition target, the FCC might have to throw up their hands in defeat.

But back to the proposed plan for Sprint to acquire T-Mobile.  Facing a communication and wireless industry industry dominated by two major players, Verizon and ATT, the number 3 and number 4 players were no match.  Yes, they created choice for the consumer, but couldn't match for service and coverage.  And while a merger reduces the number of competitors, it actually helps to make them a more formidable competitor as a much larger number 3 wireless provider.  And frankly, they need all the help they can get. 

Both ATT and Verizon offer more capabilities; ATT with a DirecTv and their U-verse product, have a firm cable and broadband base and Verizon with FIOS has the same.  Neither Sprint nor T-Mobile bring that business to their mix; they benefit only by increased size.  One might hope that a future partnership with Dish could then set them up nicely and make it an even stronger competitive option. 

Some are concerned that the FCC won't like this Sprint T-Mobile pairing but I believe it is in the interest in the economy that it be approved, as should each of the above deals.  The industry has always been an oligopoly; size continues to matter to make these business able to continue to compete. 

Broadband Usage Looking Like A Los Angeles Freeway

The FCC is hard pressed to maintain net neutrality, equal access for all content, large and small, across the broadband pipeline.  But companies like Netflix are hedging their bets by paying for faster routes with providers like Comcast and Verizon FIOS.  As a result, broadband pipelines are looking like LA freeways in that they have regular lanes and HOV lanes.  These high occupancy lanes give special treatment to multi-passenger vehicles and; in fact, LA is selling express passes for solo drivers that also want to use these lanes.  Unfortunately, the remainder of the lanes become more congested with other drivers either unwilling to pay extra for HOV or carpooling. 

The loss of net neutrality simply turns highways from equal access to all into freeways like the 110 or the 10 in Los Angeles.  While good for bigger companies like Netflix, it hurts the rest of the content field seeking to avoid traffic jams but unable to pay the "convenience fee"  And like always, consumers will eventually pay more to cover these content streaming costs. 

Until technological innovation comes along to reduce the size of content streams or improve the speeds of transport, the fast rise of digital content consumption by consumers will only continue to clog the broadband pipes.  Net neutrality sounds like a good idea but it doesn't solve the underlying problems of broadband congestion.  I believe the FCC should do more to encourage additional broadband competition; open more airwaves, encourage new players to enter, and allow competition for platforms to be best for consumers. 

Net Neutrality Nixed, Netflix Pays Up

Netflix's deal with Comcast to pay for assured access and speed to their broadband lines is only surprising in how quickly this agreement occurred.  It's as if Netflix had expected and prepared for this day and had an agreement in its back pocket read to present to broadband companies like Comcast, Verizon, and others.  "It also comes amid growing signs that congestion deep in the Internet is causing interruptions for customers trying to stream Netflix movies and TV shows."  And it shows that Netflix wanted to put its customers' satisfaction first in accessing its content. 

But such a first deal will now force Netflix to negotiate with each and every broadband provider to assure similar access and streaming speed.  Those additional expenditures will need to be absorbed and the next likely announcement could be an increase in monthly subscription fees to its consumers for Netflix.  Yes, it is trickle down theory at work where the customer, you and I, eventually pay more for the product or service we consume.

Some might point to the need for new net neutrality rules to squash this preferential treatment and once again give all content equal access and speed.  With this Comcast - Netflix deal, the genie is out of the bottle and it is unlikely that new rules will arise.  Good or bad, net neutrality is dead.  But that shouldn't stop innovation and entrepreneur efforts to improve streaming, increase bandwidth, and uncover new technologies to transmit and access content.  Ultimately, the rise of more choice for broadband access will keep prices down, not net neutrality laws.

For now, Netflix will be paying for a spot at the front of the broadband line; Amazon, Hulu, and others may shortly follow.  And consumers will pay as well.  It just might be time for another quantum leap in broadband technology and airwave access.  Net neutrality may be nixed but innovation remains our future. 

Broadband Could Bundle Like Cable

The loss of net neutrality has many folks fearing that equal access to content will no longer be equal.  Where the FCC tried to ensure that all content was treated equally regardless of its size, the recent US Court order has opened Pandora's Box to new concerns including higher costs to access higher speeds and bundling of content online.  And ultimately, that consumers will pay more to access content.

Critics of the new ruling believe that now ISP companies, the ones providing broadband service to your home, will charge content companies more to get HOV access and faster speeds.  More established and richer content platforms, can afford to pay up, but they might also need to raise their subscription fees to recoup those added costs.

ISPs, like Comcast and Time Warner, could also start charging consumers more usage fees and bundle content to customers that want to receive faster streams.  "The cheapest, fastest bundles will probably include the sites that pay ISPs the most -- most likely the big boys, including Amazon and Netflix. Another possibility is that ISPs could bundle popular sites with less-popular ones that are willing to pay. If you pay for a Netflix bundle, for example, you may be forced to use the Bing search engine."  Good for the more established brands, but bad for new platforms and its content trying to get discovered and viewed.  It starts to look eerily reminiscent of today's cable packaging plans.

And while the internet is not a utility, it certainly has become useful for utilitarian purposes from communication to information.  "Access to unrestricted news will become a luxury reserved only for those who can pay more to their providers."  Schools and libraries could become the best meeting places for the less fortunate to access high speed internet. 

Of course, all this pontificating doesn't take into account how consumers and the government react to any detrimental shifts.  We can be sure that new disruptive technologies will also emerge to quickly change the landscape, from new ideas to reduce file loads to new entrants in the ISP space and new technologies that make the current internet look like a dinosaur.  The media landscape continues to evolve at a faster and faster pace and no doubt, the end of net neutrality may simply be the opportunity for new doors to open. 

The Court Enables ISPs To Run HOV Lanes

In what has been described as a blow to net neutrality, the US Court has pushed aside FCC efforts to keep the internet stream open and equal to all.  Instead, they are allowed to operate HOV lanes and charge premium pricing for access.  That means that broadband providers like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and others can pursue deals with high usage content distributors like Netflix, Amazon and others for faster streams at higher prices.  In addition, "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday that the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit broadband and mobile service providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic and applications."

For companies willing to pay it means more costs to distribute and for broadband providers, it means a new revenue stream.  And for the consumer, it ultimately means higher costs for content and some difficulty in getting content from outlier platforms.  If Netflix needs to pay more for distribution, they need to charge consumers a higher subscription fee to recoup those losses.  Consumers will find content that didn't pay for HOV access slowed down in getting their streams to our respective devices. 

Why did the courts rule this way?  It is because they do not see the web as a utility like gas, electric, or water.  It is not a basic right regardless of how pervasive it has become for communication purposes.  And the laws of our free economy best operate under supply and demand.  As long as it does not operate under monopolistic conditions, government shouldn't interfere.  And like a free economy, the rules of disruptive technology should also apply.  Technological innovation to improve streaming, deliver alternative solutions, and improve our lives.  By not setting net neutrality rules, the US Court may just be inviting new broadband opportunities to emerge. 

The Future Of Net Neutrality

Are all video streams created equal or do some have more power over others?  And should money dictate who gets the right -of-way on the information highway?  That certainly may be part of what comes from the District Court case between Verizon and the FCC.

What is true is that yesterday's laws regarding telephone access and telecommunication have changed dramatically with the rise and growth of the internet.  The influx of more devices, broadband and, video streaming have created a more complex superhighway that no longer abides by the old rules. And the result has been a concern about access, speed, and preference.

According to "Susan Crawford, a tech policy expert and professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law who served as Special Assistant to President Obama for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy. 'The question presented by the case is: Does the U.S. government have any role in ensuring ubiquitous, open, world-class, interconnected, reasonably priced Internet access?'” If not, then should the businesses that have built these highways and access points, companies like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and others, have the final say in issuing access, speed limits, and right of way?  Ultimately, is the web a regulated, open highway or a private turnpike?

Net neutrality laws were designed to assure that all web traffic was treated equally by the provider of broadband and wireless services.  No favoritism or HOV lanes to the ones that pay an extra fee.  For the companies that have spent huge amounts of capital building these online highways, they believe that "they should have more latitude in deciding what content travels over those networks."  It is a classic case between private business and public policy.  Which way the District Court decides matters little; it is the kind of case that ultimately must find itself in front of the Supreme Court.  Concerns on both sides of the issue are plenty and the final decision will have huge repercussions.

 

Cable Companies Accused of Antitrust

Are cable companies practicing monopolistic behavior, driving pricing up while limiting smaller programmers and new video platforms from growing?  Today's Wall Street Journal article has the Justice Department looking deeper into these practices.  From talk of lack of net neutrality to pricing, it is reasonable to suspect that such behavior is in fact necessary to maintain the dominance over the customer in an industry that is rapidly seeking new means for distributing content and managing bandwidth.

The cable companies built these digital highways initially for a proprietary video platform; technological changes have enabled content to be consumed on this same highway.  The cable companies want these highways to be a toll road; consumers want free travel.  Cable companies want to control what you view and from whom, consumers like the a la carte choice and free to view model.  And so you have conflict.

Today, that means the Justice Department digging deeper into cable practices including contract requirements that may limit where a programmer can exhibit or how much, and pricing requirements that guarantee they get the same deal as other big distributors.  As the largest distributor, Comcast has the largest target on its back.  Along with this current probe, Comcast is facing additional lawsuits.  "The suit accuses Comcast of violating sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by gobbling up competitors, then overbilling consumers for services."  Now this particular lawsuit appears to have been in the courts since 2003.  The wheels of justice may move so slow that technological change may find a solution before the courts do.

Consumers Want A La Carte Programming So They Can Pay Less

Why the threat of cord cutting?  It is because consumers have grown tired of watching their cost of cable explode and are seeking alternatives to a cable subscription.  Those consumers in markets with telco overbuilders like to play the game of switching, or at least threatening to switch, in order to get discount pricing from their cable operator.  Others, according to the latest survey, would rather pay just for the channels they watch.

"U.S. consumers would overwhelmingly prefer to pay for just 19 TV channels at $1.50 a pop than their current multichannel packages, according to a new survey.  RBC Capital Markets found that 92% of over 1,000 respondents are interested in a a la carte TV offering that would cost them far less than the $84 they pay for access to at least 91 channels on average."  Unfortunately, a number of the notable networks would want much more than a $1.50 for their service.  And cable operators don't have the ability to unbundle networks and sell individually because of contractual issues.  Most networks require that they be offered to the largest group of customers and that their reach exceeds 90% of total homes that subscribe.  In today's marketplace, a la carte offerings by a cable operator are not realistically possible.

So consumers seek other alternative means to watch programs that they want at a price point that they are willing to pay.  Hulu just announced that their premium subscription service, priced at just $8 a month, already has over 2 million subscribers.  Netflix is offering its own low priced streaming service as well.  What percentage of these customers are also cable subscribers was not released; it would be interesting to learn if these customers are cord cutters or not.  Are these services complementary to cable or indeed upstarts?

Consumers may want to find alternatives to their cable subscription or they may simply want to complain and won't really act to cut that cord.  A la carte sounds like an ideal solution but it won't happen in the current cable operator model.

Wal-Mart Trying Hard To Compete With Netflix, Apple And Others

Big box stores like Wal-Mart are recognizing that they need to have a strong digital business to survive and compete. And a dot com strategy must be more thaan simply selling its in-store merchandise online. It is why Wal-Mart continues to push a streaming media video play. "A cloud-based video movie service, Vudu lets customers rent or buy movies over the Internet and stream them to their TVs, Blu-ray players and a variety of Vudu-enabled devices such as Sony's (SNE) PlayStation 3 and HDTVs from LG Electronics, Sharp and Panasonic (PC)." Vudu was bought by Wal-Mart last year and is being rolled out next week.

Wal-Mart hopes that it is not too late to the game, with Apple, Netflix, Amazon, and others also in this space. "Unlike competing services such as Netflix, the Vudu platform on Walmart.com does not offer any subscription service, and the retailer said it does not currently plan to offer such a service." A one off strategy may not be enough to work as companies are looking hard at subscription strategies as a means to better forecast and achieve higher revenues. And Wal-Mart may need to add music and other digital deliverables to its mix as demand for these other downloads grow as well.

Like the early days of cable, when there were many operators, the streaming media business will quick enough find that it needs to consolidate with others to control and own the platform. Perhaps Wal-Mart needs a partner like Barnes and Noble to add a digital book component to its mix. Or perhaps it could align with Apple to mutually support their new cloud approach. At the end of the day, many platforms for distribution streaming will merge into few and the leaders will be the ones to pursue consolidation and growth strategies.

FCC poised to adopt network neutrality rules

It seems that the support has been found to pass the FCC rules on net neutrality, providing equal streaming access to all. "More than a year after FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski pledged to put in place so-called "network neutrality" regulations, the agency is poised to adopt those rules at a meeting on Tuesday." And while it seems black and white, these new rules may indeed still contain areas of gray. Will internet providers find the loopholes to work around the rules? And will the courts come in and be forced to rule on its constitutionality? Ultimately, the rules are meant to provide a level playing field for all content and lower the barriers for other companies to stream competitive content online. Good news for Netflix and Google? A new competitive landscape is certainly forming.