According to James B. Speta, in his article in the Federal Communications Law Journal:

“The Internet is rife with disputes over interconnection. These disputes take many forms, ranging from complaints over unfair peering policies by "backbones," to assertions that instant messaging is being monopolized, to arguments for mandatory Internet Service Provider ("ISP") access to cable television Internet systems, to compensation disputes among local telephone companies over the delivery of Internet-bound telephone calls.”

Rampant problems

Legally, the problems have no clear direction, because in the United States specific legislation does not exist. Disputes among companies can only be handled to a specific degree. If no legal vocabulary is able to assimilate the basic coordinates of a case, little can be done.

This problem is theoretically resolved with the use of a common carrier. However, the concept of common carrier is being imploded for the simple reason that only one economic or political entity will hold sway over this common carrier.

Fierce competition

In the battle for multimedia and data exposure, there are no friends nor allies- there are only enemies. This explains clearly why data restriction is being implemented by internet-enabled cable companies.

The battle becomes more muddled once the consumers step in. The boundaries and restriction are often unclear to the public itself, which results in costly lawsuits for both sides.

As for direct and actual regulation, no such regulatory measures are being implemented. This can be understood as the extension of the freewheeling free Market structure that is being implemented in national economies.

The DOTCOM boom and bust is possible because the very infrastructure of its core, communication is unhindered by authority. However, there are some prices to pay because of this lack of regulation.

For one, companies can freely raise fees and regulate content for the sake of competition. The market, which translates to the consuming public, has no say nor have any choice when it comes to these alterations.

Rules for interconnection

The role of the legislature becomes important in the troublesome medley that we now face. The common carrier approach has actually been implemented before, people are just not aware of it.

Speta highlights the role of legislature in connection with interconnectivity and other related issues on the Internet:

“This is not to say, of course, that the rules of innkeepers, railroads, or telephones should be imported wholesale to govern the Internet. Rather, the history of common carrier regulation demonstrates the fundamental importance of interconnection rules for transportation and communications networks.”

“Interconnection had a common law analog in the duty of common carriers to serve the public generally, and explicit interconnection requirements, when later imposed by statute, helped create extensive transportation and communications networks. These networks were extraordinarily useful in their own right, but they also permitted the development of new markets that used their services as input.”