With its recent decision in ending ‘net neutrality’ as directed in the FCC‘s 2010 Open Internet Order, the (Washington) DC Circuit Court of Appeals has changed the playing field for mHealth. The FCC regulation treated internet service providers (ISPs) like telecommunications companies by enforcing telecom ‘common carriage’ requirements that prevented ISPs from blocking or discriminating against types or providers of internet traffic. The current situation is now a double-edged sword for the ISPs: on one edge, ISPs such as Verizon, Comcast or Charter won, because they now can charge fees to, slow down or demand revenue sharing of high-demand content originators (Netflix) which also use a lot of bandwidth; the other edge is that the court affirmed that the FCC regulates the relationship between the two.
The meaning for mHealth? The amount of health data carried over the internet is growing exponentially and dependent on speed. If internet carriage can be held up for small providers to make way for high-paying content, it can and will change the revenue model for mHealth. From clinicians to fitness buffs, everyone wants their data right now. It may impact lower-income people and home health which uses internet tracking for healthcare. But it may also have a stimulative effect on ISPs–more bandwidth and speed means more revenue. How does this compare to UK/Europe/Asia/Oceania regulation? What do you see as the outcome?
More here: mHealth after net neutrality: Innovation drain or gain? (GovernmentHealthIT); Three Dangers of Losing Net Neutrality That Nobody’s Talking About (Wired), Net Neutrality is Dead! Long Live Net Neutrality! (Wall Street Journal) And an advocate of Congress getting involved (!) is Greg Slabodkin in FierceMobileHealthcare. Hat tip to Editor Charles Lowe for pointing out the potential effect on mHealth.