FCC chief proposes new Net neutrality rules
As expected, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski on Monday outlined a plan to keep the Internet open.
In a speech given at the Brookings Institute, Genachowski proposed that the FCC turn its four principles of network openness official into regulation. And he suggested that the FCC add two more "principles" as part of these new rules.
The existing principles can be summarized this way: Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.
Now Genachowski is proposing two new principles. The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement.
Genachowski tried to alleviate fears that the FCC will overstep its bounds and create rules that hamper innovation.
"I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet," he said. "I also know that achieving this goal will take an approach that is smart about technology, smart about markets, smart about law and policy, and smart about the lessons of history."
The debate over so-called Net neutrality began heating up about three years ago, when congressional leaders first held hearings on potential laws to ensure that Internet service providers couldn't monkey with traffic. There is no clear definition of the term "Net neutrality," but in general it refers to the concept that Internet users should have unfettered access to content and services. In other words, service providers should not be allowed to either impede or favor access to particular sites or applications.
The discovery that the nation's largest cable operator, Comcast, had slowed down certain kinds of peer-to-peer traffic on its network fanned the flames and sparked public outrage over such practices.
But the fight to create new laws or regulation to protect Net neutrality languished after the FCC publicly admonished Comcast for violating its open Internet principles. These principles aren't regulation and the FCC is somewhat powerless in imposing any real punishment for violating the rules. Still, the slap on the wrist coupled with public outcry was enough to get Comcast to change its practices.
Getting to "greater transparency"
Genachowski reasoned that the principles now need to be actual regulation, and that broadband providers need to know the rules of the road and need to know that they must adhere to rules to ensure open access for everyone.
"We cannot afford to rely on happenstance for consumers, businesses, and policymakers to learn about changes to the basic functioning of the Internet," he said. "Greater transparency will give consumers the confidence of knowing that they're getting the service they've paid for, enable innovators to make their offerings work effectively over the Internet, and allow policymakers to ensure that broadband providers are preserving the Internet as a level playing field."
But large broadband providers such as AT&T, Verizon Communications, and Comcast have opposed new regulation or laws protecting Net neutrality. They argue that imposing new rules would prevent them from managing their networks. And they also argue it would prevent them from introducing tiered pricing to their service line-up.
Genachowski addressed these issues in his speech as well. He assured service providers that the FCC would examine violations of these Net neutrality rules case by case. He also said that the rules are not intended to prevent network operators from handling congestion on their networks. And he specifically said that broadband providers would be able to manage networks when they are congested. He also said that service providers could introduce new tiered services, so long as there is enough Internet capacity to allow for open access to the rest of the Internet.
"I recognize that if we were to create unduly detailed rules that attempted to address every possible assault on openness, such rules would become outdated quickly," he said. "But saying nothing--and doing nothing--would impose its own form of unacceptable cost."
Genachowski also made it clear that the Net neutrality rules he plans to make regulation will be applied to wireless provider, too.
"It is essential that the Internet itself remain open, however users reach it," he said. "The principles I've been speaking about apply to the Internet however accessed."
Genachowski said that the FCC would issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at the its October meeting. And he said the Commission will be seeking input and feedback from anyone interested in contributing to the process of making the rules. For example, he said, the FCC would be looking for input on how to determine whether network management practices are reasonable, what information broadband providers should disclose about their network management practices and how the rules apply to differing platforms, including mobile Internet access services.
As part of the announcement, the FCC launched a new
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. 
The problem comes in when your ISP gives their VOIP service a higher priority than a 3rd party VOIP service - but that is probably already prohibited by anti-trust regulations and this new set of regulations seems to prohibit it more explicitly.
ISP's should sell only speed and not bandwidth, otherwise innovation will suffer on the internet as people become reluctant to try new services for fear it will push them over their caps. It's also a bait and switch to sell someone an unlimited plan and change to a plan with caps after you get them hooked. I'd rather they cut my speed, and if they don't cut my speed and then implement caps I'll find a way to cut my own speed. Then I'll complain about how slow they are. :)
YouTube already has critical mass ... and transparent or not ... if I want to start my own "MyTube" then I am paying higher rates... that "neutrality" is exactly the same type of cost justifying crap they did with long distance.
But Google and Microsoft should be wiery of this one... because this is a game they won't lose .... the "transparency" is on the provider not on consumer ... and so AT&T, et all can start imposing additional requirements later on their bigger clients and say, "We are doing it to protect our smaller customers"...
This whole farce is simply an attempt at justifying price controls in a marketplace where ISP's are going to have to be required to deliver on what they were actually paid for.
The ISPs would love to charge Microsoft or Google to disimprove the other service. This would be wrong. Data is data. It all takes up the same space on the pipes.
'If you don't like your ISP, switch to another. "....that's great and all but what about all those regions that are only serviced by one ISP? Who do you turn to if your ISP is screwing you over?
Net Neutrality is about insuring that all ISP's abide by the same rules. Someone has to be in place to enforce those rules and that is the government. You used gas stations as an example....do you not realize the amount of regulation and oversight that occurs to insure fair competition between gas stations? They oversee even the simplest things at the pump, such as when a pump says it pumped 1 gallon, 1 gallon in actually delivered, not .9 or less. Likewise, net Neutrality isn't about the Government intruding into our lives and taking over, it's about insuring that everyone is treated equally.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with content consumers, bandwidth caps, or slowing down some ports.
Also keep in mind that more than one reliable study has shown that costs to the ISP's do not go up with usage, so why should we pay more? This is a blatant attempt buy the ISP's to bilk the consumer and people that buy into it by saying we should pay for what we use simply don't understand the technology.
And yes, a 5GB cap is ridiculous, and is obviously targeting online video, since it uses far more than that. I believe a Net Neutrality hearing (if the legislation passes) would show that the ISP is giving preferential treatment to users of their own video services (a violation) since the video passes over the same network (cable) and doesn't count against them.
Its vitally important that the Obama administration immediately starts to put serious pressure on the EU to also implement the same principles of an open internet. Otherwise American companies will soon find themselves at a serious disadvantage, just as European consumers who will find themselves limited to using web-services of an inferior quality.
No I'm not affiliated with any telcos, but this is an issue, and I believe it's a major concern for ISPs.
As for not being able to "tier" their services, they should just shut their mouths, because that's exactly what Net Neutrality is designed to prevent. Just because I pay top dollar shouldn't mean I can access CNet.com while you cannot. It designed to keep the internet whole, and prevent preferential treatment of data for aristocratic internet users. They can still tier their internet the way they do now, via Bandwidth. However, they've hit a road block, since casual users have no need for more than 3mbps. They just wanna find a way to bleed their pockets more.
- by wildenfirst October 20, 2009 7:39 PM PDT
- When I can buy television a la carte I may be willing to consider pay as I go internet.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(21 Comments)