FCC plans to formalize Internet rules on net neutrality draw fire

[Nagishkaw 510]

The Internet has long adhered to one basic principle: Nobody's in charge.

That hallmark owes to the Internet's grand design. It's basically a global confederation of unrelated computers, making it impervious to hurricanes, earthquakes and other disasters. Hackers regularly attack, but can't shut it down. Governments, try as they might, also can't control it.

That doesn't mean the Internet is meddle-proof.

Its Achilles' heel: Internet service providers, or ISPs. They control the on-off ramps used by millions to enter and exit the World Wide Web each day. Access is typically provided by phone and cable TV companies, via upgraded phone lines and high-speed cable-TV modems.

Currently, the only thing stopping ISPs from abusing their control are four "Internet principles" – voluntary guidelines, which are subject to interpretation.

Now, the Federal Communications Commission wants to turn those guidelines into hard rules and extend them to wireless, and that's creating a heated debate across the USA about "net neutrality" – the idea that all Internet service providers should treat all traffic on their networks the same.

The goal: to preserve the Internet as a free and open communications platform that's open to all but controlled by none. That was the original goal of the Internet's creators more than 40 years ago.

The FCC's rules, which will be finalized by spring, would amount to an online Bill of Rights for Internet users, says Ben Scott, public policy director of Free Press, a consumer advocacy group in Washington. "This is the policy that will shape the future of the Internet," he says.

Joel Kelsey, public policy adviser for Consumers Union, agrees. Net neutrality "is about trying to preserve the unbroken, wonderful model of the Internet," he says.

The Web is a Wild West of millions. Software houses, app developers, garage entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes, from King Kongs such as Google to home-based start-ups, give the Internet its personality and pizazz. There are currently more than 230 million websites and billions of individual Web pages.

The ISP community, in sharp contrast, is more akin to the NFL – power concentrated in the hands of a few.

Just six phone and cable TV companies control 65% of the USA's 80.9 million broadband users, according to a new report by tech researcher Forrester. The top four – AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner– dominate, with around 46%. A mix of smaller players (phone, cable, satellite and fixed-wireless) make up the balance.

According to Forrester, nearly 16 million new broadband subscribers will emerge in the next five years. More than half of those will materialize in the next 24 months.

One thing net neutrality won't do, Scott says, is change the Internet itself. "If we are successful in winning net neutrality rules, Internet users won't notice," he says. "And that's a beautiful thing, because the Internet today is the most transformative free market for speech and commerce in the history of the world."

AT&T and other big ISPs say the FCC's plan smacks of needless regulation.

Their argument: The Internet has grown and prospered for more than four decades without government intervention, so why regulate now?

As for wireless, AT&T and other big carriers point out that all things mobile – devices, applications and more – are chugging along nicely and have been for years, without government meddling. If onerous rules are imposed, a host of "unintended consequences" could occur, they warn.

In short, it's not broken, so don't fix it, sums up Chris Guttman-McCabe, head of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, which represents the U.S. wireless industry.

"What problems are (regulators) trying to fix?" he says.

A few highlights of the FCC's plan:

•No blocking. ISPs would not be allowed to block any online content, including features, apps and other Web-based innovations that develop in the future (spam, viruses and the like excluded).

•No favoritism. ISPs would not be allowed to give preferential treatment to their own content. And no price-gouging of customers who don't want to buy their stuff.

•No discrimination. That means an ISP can't slow down, speed up or otherwise discriminate among online traffic. They'd have to treat a start-up just as they treat Google and themselves.

•Wireless, too. Net neutrality would apply to all broadband platforms, including wireless.

•Full disclosure. To keep online traffic flowing smoothly, an ISP might be allowed to slow down some transmissions – say, e-mail – but it would have to say so publicly.

The plan would make good on a campaign promise by President Obama. He considers broadband to be infrastructure, like electricity or water. And he thinks net neutrality is critical to ensure that broadband goes deep and wide in America.

Core principle: Openness

The chief architect of Obama's technology policy is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Silicon Valley veteran and former Harvard classmate. The two men have been pals since college and share a vision of the USA's future.

In laying out his plan at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, earlier this year, Genachowski made it clear that he believes net neutrality is critical to the long-term success of the Internet. He also thinks net neutrality is fundamental to the long-term protection of the millions of consumers who depend on it.

"Doing nothing would impose its own form of unacceptable cost," he said. "It would deprive innovators and investors of confidence that the free and open Internet we depend on today will still be here tomorrow."

Standing pat, he added, "would be a dangerous retreat from the core principle of openness – the freedom to innovate without permission – that has been the hallmark of the Internet since its inception, and has made it so stunningly successful as a platform for innovation, opportunity and prosperity."

To some extent, the FCC is trying to roll back the regulatory clock. For most of the Internet's 40-plus years of existence, Web users were protected by legally enforceable rules, not just guidelines. That started changing in 2002, when the FCC deregulated high-speed cable modem services. The move played well in Washington, which favored deregulatory policies in general at the time.

By 2007, DSL and mobile broadband, which was gaining steam thanks to Web-friendly smartphones, were also deregulated.

Fast-forward to 2009.

Today, the Internet isn't just a sideline affair for consumers, it's an integral part of day-to-day life for millions. And the mobile Web is quickly eclipsing the wired Web in terms of popularity and impact, particularly among younger users.

The ISP business has also changed. Owing to advances in technology, AT&T, Comcast and other ISPs today can selectively block, or degrade, any online application. They can also slow down to a crawl any transmission – such as a movie download – that might compete with their own for-pay content. And the potential for ISP meddling ramps up sharply in the face of big media mergers, such as the one contemplated by the Comcast-NBC deal, Scott says.

"They're not supposed to sit in the middle of the (broadband) pipe and decide who gets to be a winner" and who doesn't, Kelsey says. But they sometimes do, he says.

Consider the case of the Apple iPhone, distributed exclusively by AT&T.

Until recently, iPhone owners were limited to using Skype and other Internet telephony services (also known as VoIP) on Wi-Fi only. As a result, iPhone owners lost their connection as soon as they ventured out of Wi-Fi range.

Consumers Union and other groups complained. AT&T held firm, saying the block was justified because VoIP is a direct competitor to its voice business.

With the net neutrality fight looming, AT&T recently changed its policy to allow VoIP to run over its cellular and 3G networks. (VoIP will continue to work on Wi-Fi, as well.) In announcing the policy shift, AT&T said it was bowing to the wishes of consumers.

Kelsey gives AT&T credit for doing the right thing by consumers.

Still, he says, online users – whether they're using the wired Web or the mobile version – shouldn't have to depend on handouts from carriers to use the services they want. And they won't have to, once enforceable net neutrality rules are in place, he says.

AT&T and other ISPs "are always saying: 'If it's not broken, don't fix it,' " Kelsey says, invoking the battle cry of net neutrality critics. "Well, here's my answer to that: So stop breaking it."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-12-...lity09_CV_N.htm

[NickD 202]

Originally the FCC was created to control the frequency spectrum allocation of over the air, the H and E field stuff, that was considered public property. Some organization was required or you would have two radio stations at the same location transmitting at the same frequency, so they started licensing this space.

Then they got into what you can or cannot say over the air, coming out with those seven naughty words. Left most people in the dark on this as they considered it too sinful to print them. When cable TV first came out, their power was just limited to the amount of radiation the cable could emit with Part B of their regulations. But these are very small signals, and if you are getting interference, just move the affected device. Cable like the internet is a hybrid system in that microwave relay towers are used and not considered in the public domain. These very narrow transmissions, you would have to climb a relay tower with very specialized equipment to receive and decode them, also used for telephone communications where we are permitted to say dirty words over the phone, considered private and not in the public domain. Even cable TV can send dirty movies.

But just like any other government agency the longer they are in business, the more power they want and the more control they want, even forgetting about the US Constitution. USCIS certainly forgot about our Constitution, we are all guilty of fraud until we prove ourselves innocent. Before WW II, we had just a handful of agencies, now over 1,500 of them, all seeking super power. Our congress really permitted this to get way out of hand.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Excellent post as always, Nick.

[NickD 202]

Excellent post as always, Nick.

What is fun for me is to watch both FCC and FAA agents fight out an authority issue, get free ringside tickets. But not much fun when you get struck in the middle of two agencies.