October 19, 2009 3:43 PM PDT

Amazon, Facebook, and Google back FCC on Net neutrality

by Marguerite Reardon
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 17 comments

Internet giants Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and a slew of other high-profile tech companies weighed in on new rules that are currently being written to keep the Internet open.

The CEOs of of those companies, along with some telecommunications and media firms, such as EchoStar and XO Communications, sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski on Monday supporting his efforts to create official regulation that protects Net Neutrality.

The process for developing these new rules, which Genachowski proposed during a speech last month, will begin at the agency's monthly open meeting in Washington, D.C. on Thursday.

The FCC has already received several letters from lawmakers criticizing the new rules. And the big telecommunications and cable companies, namely AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon Communications, have opposed the new rules.

These critics fear that making Net neutrality regulations official regulation will hurt investment in cable and telephone networks.

But CEOs of technology companies who sent the letter to the FCC do not think that new rules will hurt investment. Instead, they believe it will spur innovation because companies will not have to fear that their applications could be blocked by a larger competitor.

"An open Internet fuels a competitive and efficient marketplace, where consumers make the ultimate choices about which products succeed and which fail," the CEOs said in their letter. "This allows businesses of all sizes, from the smallest start-up to larger corporations, to compete, yielding maximum economic growth and opportunity."

The letter went on to say that the technology leaders applauded the chairman's leadership for initiating the process to make the Net neutrality rules official.

Some of the prominent CEOs signing the letter included Jeff Bezos of Amazon; Craig Newmark; founder of Craigslist; Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook; Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google; Barry Diller, CEO of IAC; Josh Silverman, CEO of Skype; Evan Williams, CEO of Twitter; and Steve Chen, founder of YouTube.

The debate over Net neutrality has been raging for more than three years. Congressional leaders have held committee meetings on potential laws to ensure that Internet service providers couldn't monkey with traffic. But so far none of the proposed bills has become law.

To date there are no official rules on the FCC's books that specifically protect an open Internet. Instead, the FCC has adopted four guiding principles. 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 nonharmful devices to the network.

Genachowski has proposed making these principles actual regulation. And he wants to add two new rules to this. The first would prevent Internet service 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.

But critics say that official rules or even legislation is not needed because the FCC's principles have been sufficient in handling incidences where consumer rights are threatened. They say the principles and public outrage were enough to get Comcast, the largest cable operator in the U.S., from slowing down certain kinds of traffic on its network.

The biggest issue critics have with Net neutrality is that they believe strict rules could make it difficult for companies to manage their networks.

But Genachowski has said several times publicly that the intention of these rules is not to hamper network management or stifle the development of new business models but to simply protect the rights of consumers to use the Internet freely. The rules are intended to guarantee that Internet users can go to any Web site and access any online service they want.

The two other Democratic commissioners on the FCC support Genachowski's proposed rules, which means that new regulations are almost certain. But the two Republicans and several Republican congressional leaders oppose the new rules, which means the fight could go to Congress.

It's also very likely that that battle over Net neutrality will be fought in the courts. Comcast is appealing the FCC's slap on the wrist in court, arguing that the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction to enforce such rules.

But even though there is enough support among Democrats on the FCC to impose new rules, the details still need to be worked out. Thursday's FCC meeting will get the ball rolling on the process, which Genachowski has said he plans to be transparent with input from anyone.

One of the difficult issues he will have to deal with is how much flexibility network owners will have to manage their networks. Cable operators and phone companies, which control most of the broadband networks in the U.S., say they need to ensure that certain applications don't hog all of the bandwidth.

The FCC will also need to figure the best way to treat wireless networks. Everyone agrees that wireless networks have limited capacity and are therefore fundamentally different from DSL and cable modem services. But the FCC must decide if and how the new rules will apply to these networks.

"The FCC should preserve the existing wireless Internet that has fostered tremendous innovations, provided broadband for more people, and enabled new businesses," Steve Largent, president and CEO of the CTIA, the wireless industry's trade association, said in a statement. " We should all be mindful of the dangers of unintended consequences coming from new rules implemented for the wireless Internet. The fact is that wireless is different than wireline."

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.
Recent posts from Signal Strength
RIM beats expectations on strong BlackBerry sales
Biden to unveil $2 billion in broadband grants
FCC digs into broadband controversies
Wireless and broadcast industries begin spectrum debate
AT&T 3G service disruption hits San Francsico
GAO to FCC: Wireless users need more protection
Nokia to close its two U.S. flagship stores
AT&T considers incentives to curb heavy data usage
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (17 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by deric_raymond October 19, 2009 4:06 PM PDT
I'm glad Facebook, Amazon, Twitter etc. vocalized their support with the FCC to keep Net neutrality open along with Google. Big win if any regulation goes through.
Reply to this comment
by EdwardCorreia October 19, 2009 4:19 PM PDT
Nice article, good balanced coverage. I have to ask though, how much thought you gave the angle, and in turn the headline: "Amazon, Facebook, and Google back FCC on Net neutrality." Would anyone have reason to think they wouldn't? These companies and others like them stand to lose huge sums if carriers ever decide to charge by the packet.
Reply to this comment
by mbenedict October 19, 2009 6:29 PM PDT
Net neutrality has nothing to do with per-packet (metered) billing. Companies would be allowed to charge per-packet regardless. What wouldn't be allowed is to treat certain packets differently from other packets.
by CA1900 October 20, 2009 7:38 AM PDT
Here's a very realistic scenario: News Corporation buys out Time Warner. All of a sudden, TWC internet customers can't access Facebook, because News Corp wants to drive traffic back to MySpace, which it owns. That's EXACTLY the danger here.
by nicmart October 19, 2009 4:35 PM PDT
Three companies which oppose property rights. It will cost them in the long run.
Reply to this comment
by t8 October 19, 2009 8:42 PM PDT
Open is better than shut or divided.
by baruchz October 19, 2009 5:30 PM PDT
Pretty good bet if the big telecoms are against it, it's a good thing.
Reply to this comment
by methmouth October 19, 2009 7:33 PM PDT
" We should all be mindful of the dangers of unintended consequences coming from new rules implemented for the wireless Internet. The fact is that wireless is different than wireline."

Translation : The proposed rules will make it harder for us to gouge customers. That is the difference between wireless and wireline.
Reply to this comment
by marvin25 October 19, 2009 8:19 PM PDT
The reason no one is talking about net neutrality is one ISP that give bandwidth to the electric coops/ They use so much bandwidth that the content providers are having trouble meeting the demand. The telecoms and cable know they can't do anything as the content providers can tell them to get lost. In the case of Verizon they lost to this ISP and sold off to Frontier, This was their cash cow and they don't have that anymore. The real problem is that cable and telecoms have a poor Internet and communication compared with rural America that it will come out that companies can get better and cheaper service in rural America then in the cities and suburbs. So understand things are changing and telecoms and cable are doing the changes. Cable also has lost to this ISP and this where they come up with the statement that people are dropping cable and satellite to the Internet. They are the cause of this and get use to it. I know you can't believe but this is the truth and you will find it out when someone wants to do actual research on what is happening.
Reply to this comment
by mpitogo October 19, 2009 8:31 PM PDT
Great article but we all still have other problems. One thing it doesn't solve is speed. I don' t hog the internet and want to pay for the fastest speeds, yes WANT to pay for the fastest speeds available. But my cable modem operator in a major metro area can't get me past 3-5mbps on a supposed 15Mbps turbo line. How do you like your boxee, hulu, netflix or appletv content, stuttery or shaken?
Reply to this comment
by inachu1 October 20, 2009 5:15 AM PDT
Just imagine if the internet at its founding was a bit different at its inception to be business friendly instead.

So that would mean Many things would be blocked.
Verizon customers would be unable to view comcast.com or even send an IM from verizon network to comcast network. I am sure if the FCC was dead that hulu.com would have never made it this far.
Reply to this comment
by batuaji October 20, 2009 7:36 AM PDT
OK
Reply to this comment
by TomAmontree October 20, 2009 8:16 AM PDT
Consumers enjoy an open Internet today in the absence of new regulations. The FCC?s existing principles are supported by the nation?s Internet service providers and have proven effective. In fact, one has to look back a few years to find a rare instance when they were called upon. All sides agree that "an open Internet fuels a competitive and efficient marketplace, where consumers make the ultimate choices about which products succeed and which fail." What we are debating today is whether a greater government role in the day-to-day operations of the Internet helps or hurts this progress. We should take seriously the increasingly vocal concerns of prominent network engineers and others about the likely harmful implications to consumers' online experience and our nation's economic recovery of unnecessary government intervention.

Tom Amontree
USTelecom-The Broadband Association
Reply to this comment
by vkalathil October 20, 2009 9:15 AM PDT
If you are so right on this issue, how is it that the consumers don't agree with you? Time and again, corporate America has stonewalled on essential regulation to protect consumers vs their own interests. Remember General Motors opposing safety standards because of the associated costs? Apparently it was better to let people die!!!

As history has proven, you will eventually fail because the only interest you have in mind is your own - not the consumers'.
by fletchb October 20, 2009 10:18 AM PDT
Well just recently they were called on to look into Comcast practices and also those of AT&T. Companies who refuse to accept the fact that bits are bits.
by gfsdfge October 20, 2009 11:22 AM PDT
If all sides agree then what's the harm in the laws?
Also, the debate is NOT about greater government role in the day-to-day of your business (you are trying to deflect). It's about limiting the inevitable (and necessary) greed of the capitalistic system. Without regulations capitalism self destructs.
Besides, most of us are fed up with this corporate crap of "don't make a law that says I can't screw you this way until after I screw you.?
by mikeyflowers October 21, 2009 5:16 AM PDT
Example: I have a HTC Touch Pro 2 with Verizon, Verizon has block Google Map APP from this cell phone. This app worked on my HTC Touch when i was with Alltel. it even worked after the change over when i was still using a Alltel HTC when i upgraded with Verizon to a Pro 2 it stopped working. when i checked in too the problem i found it was Blocked. i enjoy this app, i depend on this app from time to time. only to find out that Verizon "looking out for me" has a map program in my phone that only cost $9.95 a month.

Do i want some type of regs put in place that will make this a not so fun thing for companies to do YES do i want regs put in that help big companies kill smaller companies that compete with them NO. We all need to work together to come up with regs that best help companies that compete ethically succeed and that curb companies that do not.

We all need to be part of the solution not the problem, to say there is no problem is wrong, to want strict government regulations is wrong.


As for Verizon and my HTC Touch Pro 2. i am looking at other mobile phone options right now.
Reply to this comment
(17 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Behind the scenes: NORAD's Santa tracker

For decades, the defense group has let you follow the Christmas Eve travels of the jolly old elf. These days, technology is playing a bigger role than ever.

Intel redesigns Atom chip for Netbooks

The chipmaker officially announces the next generation of its popular Atom CPUs for Netbooks, the N450, weeks before the CES trade show.

About Signal Strength

Marguerite Reardon has been covering the telecom beat for more than a decade and knows more about wireless and IP networking than she cares to admit. She has been a senior writer for CNET News since 2003, covering all things wireless and broadband related from iPhone launches to major telephone company mergers to IPTV developments. She often appears as an expert on news networks, including CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, and the BBC. Maggie loves visiting CNET's headquarters in San Francisco, but she's an East Coaster at heart, living and working in Manhattan.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Signal Strength topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right