What Constitutes Neutrality?
Broadband service providers have been complaining that some users stress their networks by the size and frequency of their downloads. The providers would like to split the streams and charge different rates for premium (faster) connections. This tiered design for the Internet isn’t allowed today even though there is evidence that some ISPs (Internet Service Providers) are actually shutting down some users’ transfers at times of heavy traffic.
The other problem with removing Net Neutrality principles is that it would open up the possibility of service menus that resemble the cable offerings for television. It’s an extreme, but consumers and Internet freedom advocates warn about an ISP level of service that would sell packages with some sites included, some excluded, with rates depending on the amount of bandwidth required for your selection of sites.
Resistance to the openness rules
also comes from the wireless providers. They don’t want
the principles or the rules applied to 3G smartphone
service. The organizations’ reaction to the vote in
favor of the draft rules was expected, with speculation
that the CTIA (Cellular Telephone Industries
Association), whose new name is the Wireless
Association, will sue.

Julius Genachowski
photo courtesy of FCC
On the day of the announcement, FCC
Chairman Julius Genachowski launched a new website,
OpenInternet.gov.On
the site, users will find public workshops and
information tracking the comments and voting.
In his general statement, the chairman outlined the FCC’s view of the value of the Internet. “The Internet is and has been an open platform and it is that openness—and the extraordinary benefits it has brought for our country—that we seek to preserve through the proceeding we launch today. Internet pioneers with little more than a good idea and a no-frills Internet connection have built hundreds of thousands of small businesses as well as Web giants. . . And so we have the virtuous cycle of investment, innovation, jobs, and consumer benefits. According to one study, the Internet supports more than three million American jobs. A core goal of the FCC’s efforts is to preserve and promote this virtuous cycle driven by a free and open Internet.”
The draft rules didn’t develop in a vacuum. The Commission has held 10 different proceedings to discuss the question of how to safeguard the free and open Internet. The public record has amassed 100,000 pages of comments already from 40,000 companies, organizations, and individuals. And the process will continue for another 60 days.
Genachowski admits that there are three other reasons for the rules. First, he writes, “Let’s be honest. The Commission’s actions, laudable in so many respects, have left the protection of the free and open Internet unnecessarily vulnerable and uncertain.”
Second, “We’ve seen some significant situations where broadband providers have degraded the data streams of popular, lawful services and blocked consumer access to lawful applications, even after the Commission adopted its openness principles.”
And third, “The four principles have been attacked, including in pending litigation, precisely because they are not rules developed through the kind of notice-and-public-comment process that we should commence today.”
The time has come for formal rules
from the FCC.
The Six Rules
The proposed rules would require, subject to
reasonable network management, that a provider of
broadband Internet access service:
-
Would not be allowed to prevent
any of its users from sending or receiving the
lawful content of the user’s choice over the
Internet. (The key word “lawful” excludes material
like child pornography and terrorist’s communiqués,
but the ISP would not be able to censor any lawful
content.)
-
Would not be allowed to prevent
any of its users from running the lawful
applications or using the lawful services of the
user’s choice. (This includes applications and
services like Google docs or an Internet phone
service.)
-
Would not be allowed to prevent
any of its users from connecting to and using on its
network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do
not harm the network. (You can connect your
smartphone to the network, even if the provider
offers a different service than the one for your
phone.)
-
Would not be allowed to deprive
any user of the user’s entitlement to competition
among network providers, application providers,
service providers, and content providers. (This is
the anti-monopoly clause that covers both wireless
and wired providers. Whenever possible, there has to
be competition.)
-
Would be required to treat
lawful content, applications, and services in a
nondiscriminatory manner.
-
Would be required to disclose
such information concerning network management and
other practices as is reasonably required for users
and content, application, and service providers to
enjoy the protections specified in this rule. (The
provider can’t slow down, or deny your data streams
without your knowledge, as has happened in the case
of some sites at peak hours. This transparency
clause puts the onus on the ISP to be sufficiently
open so that customers and competitors can become
part of the controls.)
The FCC press release explains that ISPs would be able to deal with harmful traffic such as spam, unlawful content, and material that infringes on copyright laws. The six rules, however, would apply to all platforms for broadband Internet access, including mobile wireless broadband.
The responsibility of government,
Genachowski explains in his published statement, is to
encourage competition and to protect consumers’ rights.
“That is also why I have been clear that government
should not be in the business of running or regulating
the Internet. As others have said, ‘The minute that
anyone, whether from government or the private sector,
starts to control how people use the Internet, it is the
beginning of the end of the ‘Net as we know it.’ There
should be no confusion on this point, at home or abroad.
This Commission fully agrees that government must not
restrict the free flow of information over the
Internet.”
Anyone who has comments on the
proposed rules or who would like to follow the progress
of this initiative should visit the
www.OpenInternet.gov.