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:

1. 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.)

2. 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.)

3. 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.)

4. 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.)

5. Would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

6. 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 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.