Net neutrality gets a boost from the feds
Net neutrality advocates got a boost of support Wednesday from the Obama administration when it released grant guidelines for spending the government's $7.2 billion broadband stimulus package.
Companies winning grants to help build new broadband infrastructure will have to follow the Federal Communications Commission's Internet Policy statement, which prohibits companies from deliberately blocking or slowing Internet traffic on their networks.
Proponents of that concept, Net neutrality, have been pushing the government to pass laws or set stricter requirements to ensure that consumers get access to content they want and that competitors are not run out of business by network operators.
The phone companies and cable operators have opposed such legislation, a sentiment that seemed to be shared by the Republican-controlled FCC under the previous presidential administration. But now that Democrats are in charge, Net neutrality advocates have been looking for indications of how the new FCC led by recently sworn-in Chairman Julius Genachowski will handle the issue.
It is still too early to know whether Democrats will push for new laws. But it's becoming more clear that protecting access on the Internet is an important issue to many.
Consumer and advocacy groups, such as Public Knowledge and Free Press, applauded the decision to make Net neutrality a condition of the grants.
The Obama administration released guidelines Wednesday for companies and other groups applying for the first of three batches of grants that will be distributed to promote broadband as part of the economic stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year.
The first batch of funds is about $4 billion and represents more than half the $7.2 billion that the government has allotted to fund broadband infrastructure investment over the next two years. About $4.7 billion of that money will be doled out by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration for grants to build broadband infrastructure in unserved or underserved areas and to further develop public safety as well as stimulate demand for broadband. The remaining $2.5 billion will be allocated by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide loans to service providers building broadband infrastructure in rural areas.
Other important aspects of the rules that came out this week include the government's definition of broadband. The rules for the grants define broadband transmission speeds to be no less than 768Kbps downstream and at least 200Kbps upstream to end users. These speeds hardly seem like broadband to most consumers used to cable model services and other high-speed Internet services like Verizon's Fios service.
But the lower speed definition is to ensure that companies addressing rural markets that may only be able to be served by slower DSL connections or wireless services can still receive grants. In an effort to promote higher speed services, however, the government will give preference to companies planning to deliver high-speed services.
The government also outlined what it means when referring to an "underserved" region. Areas where less than 50 percent of households have no access to broadband will be considered underserved and eligible for grants.
More specific rules to help companies write grant proposals for getting these funds will be released next week.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 



Hopefully soon enough Net Neutrality will become a trend.
Nevermind the fact that net "neutrality" is nothing more than a roadblock to innovation in favor of lowest-common-denominator service. Instead of being able to offer high-def video services, pipes for gaming, and any of a dozen developments nobody has thought of yet but which require real-time fixed bandwidth, ISPs won't be able to set aside dedicated channels while leaving email and web requests on separate paths because that isn't "neutral".
It's like saying that no one's mail should be "discriminated" against, so we're going to ban dividing mail into 1st class, 2nd day, Overnight, etc, then pretending that that will make everyone's mail Overnight (how fantastic!). Of course the actual effect is to ban the ability for people to buy specialized priority services, leaving everyone stuck in universal mediocrity.
1: Issues where a consumer is unable to access a certain website as it may offer competitive services to the ISP or a partner. i.e if Comcast blocked www.qwest.net that could be considered a breach of net neutrality.
2: Someone is paying for a 6mb/s down and 1.5mb/s up connection,and they are downloading a torrent for a new free game. Obviously barring any other use of their connection by other computers or applications, and provided they have enough peer connections to reach their 6mb/s speed in the first place, they should be able to. ISPs have been talking and trying to implement flagging on connections using P2P and then capping them. The cap defies net neutrality in that it cripples their use of their pipe for which they are paying.
Net neutrality is basically: Private connection providers need to provide the service they are acquiring a service fee for, without transmuting or crippling the access they have agreed to in regards to content or speeds. If somehow providing what they said they would provide cripples them from providing HDVS or gaming or anything else in the future that nobody has thought of, then that is on the provider and their equipment, not because the consumer is actually using what they're paying for. When you pay for 1st class, 2nd day, overnight etc... via US Mail or some shipping company, you are paying extra for that service, just like if your ISP provides for more than one service plan, you are paying more and getting more (provided your ISP is practicing net neutrality). Nowhere in there does it state everyone's going to get an T1 dedicated line or overnight delivery. It merely states that you are going to get what you agreed to when you signed up with no expectations of being limited. However, depending on law changes, it may disallow providers to "cap" up and down data transfer rates in totality. For Example Comcast I believe currently will warn and possibly discontinue your service if you go over X Gb of data transfer per month.
The System seems to work quite
well on it's own.
Do We Really Have a Problem ???
Next thing you'll say they should be able to drive a car of their choosing and afford to fill it up, or choose where to set their thermostat and be able to afford their power bills! Blasphemy! Dictate it all til they learn their place!
Trust me - we're nowhere near what you (and somehow suddenly millions of other people in the mere 6 months) are thinking
Lets see what controls so far: banks, auto industry. What does he want to control next: health car, carbon derivatives market (if cap and tax passes the senate). Do you think he will stop before he reaches the Internet? Really? I don't want Net Neutrality to become another form of government control because you know once congress get their grimey paws over it the bill most certainly will call for yet another new department and heaven forbid an Internet Czar
Do you really want an internet czar? Do you really want layers of new laws? It isn't so much that conservatives are against Net Neutrality as that they don't want more laws. We want less power in goverment hands.
Damn extremists and their unwillingness to accept government control over every facet of their lives!
I'm no socialist and I generally prefer the government to stay out of business' business, but I am behind net-neutrality 100%. If the telcos and cablecos (hereafter lumped in with telcos) are allowed to extort peering and transit fees from content providers in order to permit unthrottled access to those services, you'll see not only a dramatic (read DEVASTATING) drop in free online content, but costs for pay services will necessarily skyrocket until the only services remaining outside of those offered by the telcos themselves will be the few biggest content providers able to financially survive the extortion. You really don't want this to happen, you absolutely don't.
IN MY OPINION, the big telcos and cablecos are meglomaniacal, anti-competitive, technology stifling criminal enterprises that have been allowed to get away with massive theft and monopolistic practices because they own the decision making politicians and political cronies lock, stock and barrel through their mega-millions pocket lining, massive lobbying and AstroTurf campaigns. I am not affiliated with TeleTruth, but IMP their site is worth checking out for some eye opening fact gathering about how every person who has ever spent a dime with a big telco or even paid taxes is getting ripped off big time. www.teletruth.org
Of course, this just my opinion, formulated by my first hand experiences...
Even worse, your ISP could throttle streaming video services such as NetFlix to the point of unusability in order to force you to their own pay-per-view offerings. Allowing an ISP to prioritize content on a connection YOU'RE paying for is a very slippery slope.
Stopping this kind of abuse was a campaign promise Obama made in October of '07. He said, "I am a strong supporter of net neutrality... as president I'm going to make sure that is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward." He's following through on his campaign promise.
CNET has NOT given both sides a fair shake and I for one has not taken a position based on only one side of an argument. I have many questions for other CNET readers and hopefully we can get some honest dialog going here. Below I made an attempt of representation of the other side, which I believe has at least some merrit
For one why is a tiered system so bad? wouldn't it just allow lower cost products to be market to lower income families? And have optional higher end products available to other users? I know of course the real reason for cable and phone companies are fighting this, they want their product data to take precendence over other data. Net neutrality in essence will not allow this. This raises serious issues for telecom in the handling of emergency infrastructure and the only way around I can can see are parallel systems and data usage caps.
Google is one of the strongest driving forces behind Net Neutrality. They have the most to lose from this, esp with the purchase of Youtube. They don't want for example that the cable companies own movie channel services to take precendence over their data.
I leave with one last question and probably the most important. WHY? Why do we need ANY legislation on this? If you are unable to get video at desirable speed you will contact your provider, if your Movie On Demand fails to start you will do the same. I see this as a battle of content providers on the NN side and infrastructure providers on the opposing side. Can this not simply be handled inside the existing consumer protection structures that he have today? Don't we have enough laws, why do we need to government to legislate every single little aspect of our lives?
We just must get control of these criminal corporations or we are lost. With reasonable and effective controls, the limited liability corporation can be of great benefit to the society, not the destroyer of society.
We do NOT need more goverment control and regulation, espesially not of the internet. Even now there are talks of Obama creating an Internet Czar. Be careful what you wish for....
You really have the right wing mantra down pat. No one really believes it though.
I think there's an error here... should be "Areas where MORE than 50 percent..." or "Areas where less than 50 percent of households have access" (remove the no between have and access)
As for the actual topic, I think this is a great thing, if it's enforced. Here in South Africa we're constantly subject to the 'shaped' vs. 'unshaped' debate. We pay through our teeth for 'broadband' (maximum of 7.2Mbit/s, over HSPA), and still certain protocols are throttled during certain times of the day. It's a scam, but we have no competition and so no choice.
- by zanzzz July 4, 2009 9:46 PM PDT
- Whenever the topic of Net Neutrality comes up the inevitable posts are sure to follow. The "free market" believers think any and all government regulation is a disaster and the market will right all wrongs through the wonders of competition. If only it were true. The reality is most people live in areas with one or two "choices" for broadband at best. That is best described as an oligarchic business environment. It is unrealistic to think that a half dozen or so companies will be allowed to string fiber lines on telephone poles that do not have the space to accommodate them. Where is the competition to come from? Stop making absurd statements about economic theory that cannot apply to this industry!
- Reply to this comment
-
(28 Comments)