Reactions To FCC Net Neutrality Proposal Mixed

For the tech community, net neutrality is the byword for a free and open Internet. So the Federal Communication Committee's announcement that they would introduce regulations to protect net neutrality came as a welcome relief.

But response to the proposal as it stands has been far from unanimous praise. Initial excitement that the matter had been officially introduced at all was quickly subsumed by wariness over ambiguities in the proposal that seemed to allow broadband carriers to continue their old practices under the cover of a false openness.

Net neutrality is supposed to stop carriers from blocking content or for charging fees to speed up certain connections while slowing others. Without such regulation, the fear is that major cable companies would have the ability to make deals with specific sources of content and make it more difficult for the consumer to reach their competitors.

Some hail the proposal as a crucial move towards instating regulation. "I think this is an extremely important first step," Jed Katz, managing director at Javelin Venture Partners, said. "The alternative is not to take that first step."

Other tech groups joined in praising Commissioner Julius Genachowski for getting the proposal off the ground, while remaining reserved about its content "Knowing there'd be all this pushback from Republicans we have to at least applaud the FCC chairman for moving forward on this," said Cathy Sloan of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA).

But some advocates for net neutrality are outraged at what they regard as a proposal so watered-down as to not even meet the original definition of the term. "The proposed rule is riddled with loopholes and falls far short of what's necessary," Josh Silver of the Free Press wrote.

While prohibiting the blockage of lawful content and enforcing transparency about network management, the proposal retains several components that seem less aligned with the FCC's original plans for net neutrality regulation.

The proposal relies on classifying broadband Internet access under Title I of the Communications Act as information services. This classification is the same legal authority that resulted in April's FCC loss to Comcast, under the justification that the FCC had overstepped their authority. Reclassification of broadband services under Title II as telecommunication services would give the FCC the authority to regulate the actions of broadband carriers, a possibility that met with opposition from the telecom giants when it was first proposed.

Genachowski's solution was a "Third Way," a hybrid move that would reclassify broadband as an information service but also limit the FCC's power. The proposal he outlined on Wednesday adheres not to his "Third Way," but to the Title I regulations that he himself called "a protracted, piecemeal approach to defending essential policy initiatives," back in May. Michael Copps, an FCC commissioner whose vote Genachowski will need to pass the proposal, is expected to give a speech tonight backing his preference for Title II regulation.

Further, the proposal allows for the possibility of usage-based pricing, a policy that opens up the possibility that companies with the means would be able to pay for prioritized access. It also classifies broadband Internet access separately from mobile wireless, so that no non-discrimination rule applies to wireless. "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say if you access it through your Internet standing in Times Square and if you access it from your desktop in SoHo you get another Internet," said Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge.

But the carriers seem to be cautiously satisfied with this version of net neutrality. AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner all praised the FCC for their handling of the situation. "We are pleased that the FCC appears to be embracing a compromise solution that is sensitive to the dynamics of investment in a difficult economy and appears to avoid over-regulation," AT&T said in a press release.

The proposal will be put to a vote on December 21, a reminder that despite the intensity of the debate thus far, net neutrality remains in its earliest stages. "They've been sitting on this for over a year," Sloan said. "Forward motion is certainly better than stalemate."

Comments

[Sarad]

07:17 PM on 12/20/2010

I have been signing petitions, writing letters and sending e-mails to the F.C.C., Michael Copps, and Genochowski, begging them to protect the internet as it is now. The Commission should have met and voted in September. Genochowski asked for more time. I find it interesting that now, during Christmas week, he's ready - knowing Republicans will have most of the control of Congress next month. That alone should tell us which way the wind is blowing.

We can all say a sad farewell to the last access to information that is not controlled by corporations. Now, we will all be paying more and getting poorer service, plus being denied access to sites they choose.

Are you ready to be a peasant to be used by the Powers That Be?

[ErnestineBass]

01:33 PM on 12/20/2010

Anytime something is stamped "Third Way", rest assured there's a "Fifth Column" laying in wait.

[Wisco-libertarian]

08:04 AM on 12/06/2010

This isn't so much net neutrality as it is so much the FCC regulating the Internet. Too bad, too, because the Internet was becoming our greatest source of free ideas in the United States. Now the FCC will begin regulating what we can and can't do on here.

[ErnestineBass]

01:28 PM on 12/20/2010

Bollocks.

Corporate entities like AT&T, Verison and Comcast want to regulate what you can and cannot do on "their" internet.

Wake up.

[Sarad]

07:19 PM on 12/20/2010

Beg to differ. Not the FCC, the ISPs will be in control and will tell the FCC what they want - and get it!

[ariveria]

09:23 PM on 12/05/2010

somewhere i saw the republicans opposed this as anti business. my first thought was rush and beck with moses in the desert. moses is explaining the law he gets to:

Leviticus 19:36
'You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin; I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt.

rush and beck go ballistic "this is anti business"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. 3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. 4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
Jeremiah 10:2-4

[shocktreatment]

01:50 PM on 12/05/2010

"Mixed" huh. Praise from those who stand to gain from anti-consumer, anti-competitive, anti-1st Amendment activity still permitted under this neutral-in-name-only shuck masquerading as a genuine effort to protect internet users from corporatists, "mixed" with outrage from everyone else.

Appalling, yet not surprising.

[SilentSolidarity]

04:41 AM on 12/05/2010

People must know about this. If we don't push, the FCC will assume that we don't care about net neutrality and before you can count to 3, we will go back to the days when you paid per MB.

There is no such thing as a "middle ground." We need net neutrality for anything that has access to the web. Wired and wireless!

It can't be possible that we are the only country where we have to pay per site while the rest of the world surfs throuhg the web whenever they want and high speed. >:-(

[SilentSolidarity]

04:47 AM on 12/05/2010

This makes me so sick! There is no debate about net neutrality in Europe and East Asia. All of them take it for granted that ISPs msut nto restrict internet access. But here in the great United States, we have to listen to corporations to protect their greed. Lobbying is destroying this country.

[edejan]

05:32 PM on 12/06/2010

Many countries have labeled a neutral internet a RIGHT. Here's it's considered a "privilege" and one that will become increasingly unavailable and unaffordable.

[Sarad]

07:29 PM on 12/20/2010

"People must know about this....the FCC will assume that we don't care..."
I don't know how you missed it, the FCC has been bombarded with protests, requests and downright begging for more than a year. Two million signatures on petitions were handed to them last week until they cut off any more requests.

I found out about it ON THE INTERNET. I no longer depend on the Rightwing MSM for information. I go to the Net. After tomorrow, I guess I'll have nowhere to go.

More than a year ago I stumbled across a "trade" site for ISPs, warning them to start low and slowly increase prices so that customers wouldn't be shocked by a $200 bill right off the bat. Wish I had saved that URL, or at least copied what it said - but I didn't take them seriously.

[NightlyMath]

03:33 AM on 12/05/2010

I am truthfully tired with this obsession over trying to find a "middle ground" over net neutrality. The reality is that there isn't one. Either you accept the internet in its present form as it was designed by the researches that built it, or you shift to a tiered system where information is not treated equally and is in effect "cableized". This really is a one or the other scenario. Many of the arguments that have been put up against the current system stem from what seems to be simple unadulterated greed.

I simply don't see how ISPs should have any right over controlling what servers I connect to and what I am using my internet connection for, so long as I remain within my assigned bandwidth allocation and upload/download cap. VoIP, P2P, gaming, web browsing, or even watching video, the content of the packets shouldn't matter. If there are issues with bottlenecks in the backbone, then why the heck aren't they reinvesting mine and everyone else's $40 or more a month on improving the network instead of trying to partition it apart so they can increase profits.

Any time I hear companies complain about regulation preventing "innovation," it seems to me that they're really complaining about not being allowed to scam everyone out of even more money with artificial and fraudulent excuses for unethical business practices.

[SilentSolidarity]

04:48 AM on 12/05/2010

They are nto investing the money because they want to keep as much of it as profit while providing the worst service possible.

[ErnestineBass]

01:30 PM on 12/20/2010

That's the "bottom line" truth of the matter right there. Faved.

[edejan]

05:34 PM on 12/06/2010

True. Once these corporations gain control, the onlt innovation is in how to increase profits. Actual technical innovation tanks.

[Shaun Dawson]

10:58 PM on 12/04/2010

I won't pretend to understand the intricacies involved in the "Third Option" but I do think that what should be a simple philosophy - net neutrality - is being overly complicated. In my opinion the FCC should be able to regulate fairness on the internet or rather fairness of access to the internet.

The gatekeepers to the internet like Comcast and Time Warner should not be allowed to stifle competition or determine which services should receive preferential treatment. When Comcast attempted to degrade BitTorrent traffic, that case should have been under the domain of the FCC. However because Comcast was classified as an "information services" company and not a "telecommunications services" company the FCC had no jurisdiction.

I don't see how the "Third Option" clarifies under which set of circumstances the FCC gets involved. But what I do see is the dilution of the principle of net neutrality. Why is it so hard to set rules and regulations for the gatekeepers so that there are equal opportunities for everyone?

[edejan]

05:35 PM on 12/06/2010

As usual, the third option is only made to confuse and baffle the average consumer so that we can't really form a fighting ideology to really push.

[scallywag]

01:20 PM on 12/04/2010

I am certain that corporate interests will win out over public interests. It always does these days. And therein lies the problem that will ruin America and its failed attempt to establish a republic. (A democracy is not necessarily a republic.) Net neutrality is not complicated. A simple paragraph would be all that is necessary to dictate true net neutrality, that all packets must be treated equal. That being said, I see nothing wrong with offering different levels of service. That is, one can pay for more speed and less latency, and an ISP must deliver what they advertise. Oh, and some true competition would help too. Then we would not be so far down on the list for the value ratio for Internet service, which is downright embarrassing.

[edejan]

05:40 PM on 12/06/2010

The problem with charging for different levels of service really disenfranchises those of us who are in the poorer segment of society. Pres. Obama's promise was high speed broadband for all citizens, such as they have in other countries. I think I read that S. Korea charges $7 per month for speeds 20x faster than ours.

[nhfarmer]

12:05 PM on 12/04/2010

It's all about who gets to make the most money off the Commons, as always. The Internet packet consumers pay one hundred percent of all of the cost of providing every bit of content they transmit and receive, including the Internet advertising they watch off content providers sites. Some consumers subsidize other consumers, up to an enforced maximum GByte content limit, and that causes a problem and an opportunity. The IP content providers, IP carriers, and ISPs all want to source, carry and deliver as many subsidized packets as possible, so they fight for money for each packet they source, carry and deliver. The consumer pays one hundred percent of the cost of the fight, as prices rise.

There are now only three alternative solutions: 1) Allow information monopolies to fight for supremacy, 2) allow information cartels to fight for supremacy, or, 3) regulate companies that carry and deliver any Internet packet, using some form of Net Neutrality. The lack of Net Neutrality for wireless will allow wireless packet cartels and monopolies to form. That is why the modified Net Neutrality proposal is being reluctantly accepted by information money makers, to the detriment of the wireless consumer. Wireless is Commons. Humans haven't learned how to share the Commons, leading to human-made tragedies. Dolphins tell jokes about humans, even as dolphins suffer, so they can learn from human's inability to use the Commons for Nature's good.

[techBob]

08:10 PM on 12/03/2010

"According to the New York Times, it's not even close to the real Net Neutrality that President Obama promised the American people.

The Times report, based on interviews with the Chairman's office and a speech he gave today, indicates that the proposed rule is riddled with loopholes and falls far short of what's necessary to prevent phone and cable companies from turning the Internet into something that looks like cable TV, where they decide what moves fast, what moves slow, and whether they can price gouge you or not.

The proposal is a shiny jewel for companies like AT&T and Comcast that have met with the Chairman more than anyone else during the past month, and whose affection he seems to crave more than making good on President Obama's promise."

Says it all, doesn't it? Another sell out of the US public.

[techBob]

08:14 PM on 12/03/2010

Netflix has already raised their prices as a result of Comcast firing the first salvo in this battle.

[Fourth Horseman]

06:19 AM on 12/04/2010

Read your few post on here and you seem passionate, shame more people in this country aren't.

I can't believe that there isn't HUGE red flags going up over this newest plan, being that Comcast and AT&T think it's swell.

I think they will pass this and those in the know (Too small a voice) will complain and the rest of the country will go back to forgetting about all this Net Neutrality and then, we are in trouble. Little by little they will peck away, change the FCC rules in their favor a bit more and before you know it we will have "Cable 2 - Death of the Internet"

This isn't alarmist folks, remember the ruling mega phone companies of old, how there was nothing but 3 channels for decades, how cable forced you to have channels you didn't want and changed you handsomely for it.

It's on it's way for a few more decades of BullSh*t.

[edejan]

05:43 PM on 12/06/2010

Many of us on this forum have written relentlessly to Chairma Genachowski. At one point when he was read to jump the shark, he didn't because of a QUARTER MILLION emails/letters. People have been trying to work against the overtaking of the internet but the MSM has a complete block on any news reaching the larger population. That's why everything has been taken from us as citizens...the MSM covers up these important issues to give us more info on Kim Kardashian.

[Bilmekanikeren]

06:05 PM on 12/03/2010

So, when are we going to grow tired of being sold down the river and the fat cats always getting their way?

[techBob]

08:04 PM on 12/03/2010

This might help snap the public out of complacency. If they mess with our entertainment and we are no longer able to afford to go on-line or tire of having content blocked we may not be so distracted and we might just begin to realize We The People have a voice and bring it to the streets. Anything short of flat out revolution will be useless.

[bbbbmer]

12:02 PM on 12/04/2010

The 'public' doesn't matter anymore... We're all bought and paid for by the corporations, as is our congress, and the laws they enact... We're all doomed...

Happy Hanukkah...

[edejan]

05:45 PM on 12/06/2010

The "public" probaby won't even realize this has happended for years. We're so used to being abused by the corporatocracy, we don't even notice. And there is not widespread awareness of the issue so....who is there to speak for the citizens' rights when our representatives are laughing all the way to the bank?

[ariveria]

09:25 PM on 12/05/2010

when people stop watching fox news
---------------------------------------------------------
2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. 3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. 4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
Jeremiah 10:2-4

[baba2nde]

05:12 PM on 12/03/2010

This article was posted 12:00 (presumably) Eastern time. It is now after 5 and, what, just 19 of us consider this more serious than sarah palin's tweets?

We get what we deserve, then.C'est triste!

[techBob]

08:18 PM on 12/03/2010

Speak for yourself. For the last 5 years I have written my representatives and signed numerous petitions and explained the need for real net-neutrality to anyone who would listen. The problem is unless you can bribe someone you views don't count and are ignored by those who hold the power to do something.

[edejan]

05:50 PM on 12/06/2010

For some reason, posts on Net Neutrality don't seen to get a lot of responses. I think that many people (I could count myself too) are not tech savvy, nor do they realize what the issues surrounding net neutrality are. In addition, there are SO MANY crises going on in our country politically, that all these machinations are "flying under the radar." There is no outcry on the MSM. No Bill Moyer's specials on net neutrality. There are no voices to speak for the people on this issue and our representatives are too ignorant of the issues and too well-lobbied to stand for us. As I've said before, many on this forum have signed petitions, written emails and contacted our representatives to support true net neutrality, not some obscure, dysfunctional "third way," yet the momentum seems to be towards the corporations as usual. Maybe it will taken an actual, physical revolution in this country to change any of the bad, bad laws and decisions being made.

[baba2nde]

04:46 PM on 12/03/2010

I traveled overseas recently and found competition for cellular customers is healthy, open and fierce. Customers can switch carriers at the drop of a hat because they are not saddled with "free" phones and 2-year contracts Ms Elizabeth Warren cannot unravel.

That we do not have the same freedom here makes me wonder if the proposed net neutrality rule is just another step in the wrong direction.

[techBob]

07:57 PM on 12/03/2010

No need to wonder it is a certainty.

[oilfield]

10:44 PM on 12/03/2010

most government over regulation is a step in the wrong direction.

[Fourth Horseman]

06:07 AM on 12/04/2010

You mean like with the financial collapse...... oh wait.

I'll never understand how people can still feel regulations are bad when lack of them nearly destroyed the economy.

[edejan]

05:52 PM on 12/06/2010

Net Neutrlaity is PROTECTION by the government of the internet from the ravages of the greedy, rapacious corporate tech structure. Government PROTECTION of the peoples' interests is what government is for.

[edejan]

03:37 PM on 12/03/2010

This is not a "step forward." This matter has been under consideration for a long time and all the FCC can come up with is this "first step." We know from experience that once this proposal is passed, the only further steps will be to create more loopholes. There will be no FURTHER STEPS to creat true net neutrality. The time to strike for true and lasting net neutrality is NOW.

[Sarad]

07:46 PM on 12/20/2010

You are too late. They vote tomorrow. You aren't thinking of gunpoint, are you?