Net Neutrality Shifts Into High Gear

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski didn't mention Net Neutrality when he went before a House subcommittee on Thursday (Sept. 17). The subject will be front and center on Monday (Sept. 21) when Genachowski is expected to give a speech announcing the Commission will vote in October to start a Net Neutrality rulemaking.

Combined with the announcement at the hearing from House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) that he supports Net Neutrality and will support the Net Neutrality legislation proposed by Reps. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA), it looks as if the issue which many people waited for a while to take off is finally gaining some momentum.

This will be the largest telecom fight in 14 years since the giveaway Telecom Act was fought out in 1995 (passed in 1996), and one well worth fighting. The Internet was created at a time when it was against the law for telephone companies to play favorites with the traffic that went over its network. Now, there are cable and wireless networks, along with the telephone company broadband platform that all have some piece of connections to the Internet, and no legal protections apply to any of it.

In a sense, this FCC rulemaking would help return to the basic legal principles that allowed the Internet to grow and to thrive, and to the environment which led to all the investment, not only in the network, but to all of the software and services on the "edge" of the network that we have today, whether it's a Google or Yahoo! or Amazon, or any of the hundreds and thousands of small, innovative companies. The proverbial "level playing field" finally will be leveled by rules or by a law, and not at the whim of the telecom companies which control the on-ramps to the Internet in a market in which there is very little competition.

Make no mistake. Simply because the FCC announces an action, the contest won't be confined to the Commission. Congress will become involved, and from the comments at the hearing of the Communications Subcommittee, the Republicans are ready to rumble. The Republican members, as usual, were forthright in expressing their opposition, as a half-dozen of them did, warning about threats to innovation and investment from an open, non-discriminatory Internet. It's a tough argument unless you're a phone or cable company or are subservient to one.

It would have been nice at the hearing had someone backed up Waxman's announcement with some of their own thoughts. Waxman's announcement was closely held, but even so, it would have provided a good opportunity for the Democratic members to support publicly the concept of Net Neutrality. Waxman's announcement will also serve to put the telephone company Democratic acolytes on the Commerce Committee, like AT&T's Reps. Charlie Gonzales or Verizon's Eliot Engel, on notice that they may be required to choose between their Committee chairman and their corporate sponsors.

Genachowski, for his part, didn't even broach the subject in his prepared testimony or in answers to questions. He spent more time on the FCC website and Commission reform than on the need for an open and non-discriminatory Internet. Without giving anything away, he could have voiced some support for Net Neutrality on general principle, if for no other reason than to give something back to its opponents.

Besides Net Neutrality, the other major issue of the day did get a mention. The Fairness Doctrine was raised up again, as a follow-up to the attacks by Glenn Beck and other conservative commentators on the appointment of Mark Lloyd as the FCC's diversity officer.

Genachowski did address this one in his testimony, saying: "I have also learned a few things during my brief tenure as Chairman. For one, repeating relentlessly is sometimes necessary. I do not support reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine either through a front door or a back door. I believe deeply in the First Amendment and oppose any effort to censor or impose speech on the basis of political viewpoint or opinion."

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) was one of those taking a Fairness Doctrine shot, saying that it wasn't an issue until liberals brought it up. Perhaps he missed Beck, Michael Savage and others calling Lloyd a neo-Nazi and saying he wanted to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), a former broadcaster, took his attacks from the right-wing playbook. He said there shouldn't be a "speech czar" at the Commission, and that he didn't recall having anyone quite so "strongly opinionated" in a similar position at the FCC. Lloyd, during a career as a public interest advocate, had said broadcasters want spectrum without responsibility, to which Walden took offense.

Genachowski stepped up well to defend Lloyd, saying Lloyd, defending Lloyd's credentials, telling Walden Lloyd wasn't working on fairness doctrine or broadcasting issues or "censorship" issues, and that many diverse points of view are needed on the Commission staff. Lloyd's job will be to make sure that broadband policy helps every part of the country. Walden should be pleased that someone is looking out for rural Oregon, even if he isn't pleased that Genachowski declined to throw Lloyd under the bus. The chairman stood up as he was supposed to for Mark Lloyd, and on Monday he will stand tall again for another worthwhile cause.

Follow Art Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/artbrodsky

Comments

[wilsonveteran]

I did not realize the internet was broken. If it is not why does the government now want to regulate it. The government can block any site it wants. I am not very internet savvy but do not see a need for government involvement.

[Articulator]

The idea is to keep special interests from controlling internet content. It's like saying no entity can control which cars or trucks can use the highway, if one can they all can. Otherwise only those that pay the most would get to use it. Comcast made an attempt to do that. Innovation will be stifled without net neutrality. The response time for your favorite blog could be reduced to a crawl if it falls out of favor with those in control of the internet without net neutrality. It is consistent with the laws that governed the telephone before the internet.
This issue and the already decided issue of letting the Telcos companies provide cable content were most likely the reason the telcos were helping the previous administration set up a spy apparatus on which to spy on American citizens. They were jockeying for position on these issues and trying to curry favor with the previous administration. Of course all the idiots were saying "oh, they're just being patriotic". In other words, they were breaking the law to gain favor on issues that were to go before congress with the blessing and at the urging of that White House - how third worldish is that?

[Vxx]

I want to see what "net neutrality" plays out as in the actual laws. No ISP should have the ability to inflict "man in the middle" attacks on Internet standardized protocols as Comcast did to torrent protocols. Technical people know there are legitimate ways to manage traffic (QoS, etc) that don't break connections the way Comcast did. Giving some websites higher priority than others is also against what the Internet is about.... a packet is a packet is a packet. No deep examination, just send the packet in the direction it needs to go - period. Having an ISP say an account holder can't run a "service" (website, gamehost, mail server, file server, etc)... is garbage. They should offer the connection and tune the cost (actually I'm fine with metered billing transfer as a way of sharing the load).

I'd *like* to see a disconnection between content providers and network delivery service. Comcast should not be doing both, AOL/Time/whatever, should not be doing both. These exclusivity agreements are garbage (like the ESPN360 nonsense) for the consumer.

[satanlite]

Republicans are scared out of their wits at any information outlet they can not control. It's really just that simple.

[Subterfuge]

Nailed it.

[Articulator]

and the ones they dont understand

[RobertJoon]

One of my favorite Gentleman on the subject - Bill Moyers
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html

[Indra]

Unfortunately there will be no such thing as net neutrality. Why? Because money always outs. Follow the money and you can predict where things will go. It is sad but true.

[plages]

Mr. Genachowski,

If you need my vote on "Net Neutrality!" you have it, just move on it!

[Jes]

I wouldn't be too quick to decide this is a good bill based on it's name. recall the Orwellian "Help America Vote Act" which gave us hackable voting machines, the "Patriot" act, and on and on....

If this is the same bill that was being floated last year, one of the big issues is the "two-tiered" internet, which the corporations are lobbying for... remember Ted Stevens insane rant about 'the tubes being clogged'... this was the excuse for charging sites for bandwidth used... so the big money can pay for and have fast bandwidth sites, while those without big $$$ will be stuck with tier2, ie slow sites..

ie- this is just another tool to maintain the corporate control of information.

[LREKing]

No action is better than trying to fix it?

Sounds like the Republican stance on health care to me.

[Tom Joad]

Net neutrality is a must. If this principle is not preserved, the Interwebs will become the domain of the privileged class who will also be able to limit content; failing to uphold net neutrality will create an enormous digital divide that will further class separation and transfer even more power and wealth to the very top economic class. Make sure your congressional contingent votes for the people on this one.

[Dolphinfan65]

We should all pay attention!!!!!!! this is about total control of the net. they want us coming and going. I refused to pay more then I'm paying now. I for one only visit a few sites. but if they have there way, they will bundle us to death, just like TV. This front you are seeing, is only here because the economy is so bad that they have to at lease give us a false hope!!!!!!!!

[Malkin72]

This is so important I might forgive Obama breaking ALL of his campaign promises if they can get this done.

[nichotal]

the digital equivalent of burning books in my eyes

[Dynamohum]

Buckle your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy flight!! Will they or won't they cave to telecom, cable, entertainment interests or will they maintain true internet neutraility for the users? Stay tuned. Something tells me that the prices are about to go up soon.

[momofvegasgirls]

I found this interesting article written up by CNET. Basically the article is saying that Austrainian Telecom companies are saying the issue of Net Neutrality is an American problem. Our providers in this country are making the argument that video and other rich content are using us net "space", as if it is finite. The Aussies in the article are saying it's nonsense. But ther is a "But" to the rest of the story....

Decide for yourself.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10053045-94.html

[sodisenchanted]

I had no idea how backward the US was on this issue until I lived a year and a half in the UK and Europe. High speed internet service as well as phone service and cable or satellite TV is so much better quality and much cheaper. There are so many internet and cell phone providers in the most remote parts of the UK and Western Europe you almost have to do a spread sheet to figure out which one is best for you and they are all cheap compared to the US.

All those companies seem to be doing quite well, too, so competition seems to be good for business. Corporations don't really want a free market in this country. They want monopolies

[vippy]

Well, include Japan, they are awesome, too. When will people in the USA wake up that we are
so far backwards that we don't belong in this century. However, keep pledging the allegiance,
proud to be an American, and eventually will truly see we are in last place of every industrialized nation on this globe! Our government does a great job brainwashing the people and all they know is how to be arrogant and clueless.

[MarsAmbassador]

We're just like the society in 1984. Being told who are enemies are and most people blindly accepting it. Being told that our chocolate and gin rations are increasing when we know they are not. Being told things are better here than anywhere else and they're not.

[loki]

we keep getting told we are the greatest country on earth. The smartest, The most productive, have the greatest health care and educational system, and our president is the most powerful leader in the free world, and pretty soon we start to believe it! Its called massive brain washing. Which isnt hard to do when the majority of your subjects have so little matter to be washed.
If Americans would just travel a little, or even read occasionally something besides US propaganda media, they might start to question what we've been told over the past couple decades.

[Highwind]

This is so true. We think we are so advanced, but compared to other countries we just are not. When things need to get done for the betterment of our society, we have to wait on our 'bought-an­d-paid-for­' Congress to act. Our government is basically controlled by corporations. In other countries, they pass laws and acts to get things done whether corporations like it or not. In America, we have to see if legislation will hurt a corporations bottom line. It is not the responsibility of the government to protect the profits or property of corporations. This is what pisses me off about copyright laws. The government actually helps corporations with this kind of stuff. It's not the government responsibility to protect intellectual property.

[LREKing]

Other than complaining, what are you doing to change that?

[arizonabay]

I concur with your statement except with home phone service in the UK. Ihate having to pay BT for line rental and having my service with some one else getting both ends and having to pay for call center calls.

[nichotal]

dude use

"say no to 0870 " just google it.

You can get 01/02/03 numbers for all the call centre ones which you might have got a callpackage for cheap or free calls to these numbers.

or just use a mobile and scrap the landline like I did mate.

Shaun

[shockaslim]

There are many reasons why the US is particulary behind with cell phones...we have competing technologies. GSM and CDMA are the two standards here, and it just really brings my blood to a boil that they just don't go with GSM. Also, cable companies have monopolies in particular regions in the US, which makes competition impossible.

[Okeif]

Google LTE.

This time next year GSM/CDMA won't matter; 2- 3 years from now, they'll be history.

[NoSillyName]

That sounds similar to the situation after the divestiture of the Bell System. I worked at Mountain Bell (now Qwest) during that time and there were probably a hundred small telephone companies that jumped into the fray. Not many survived... Sprint, MCI to name two. They were all offering lower prices, special long distance deals, they would pay the fee for customers to switch from another company, etc.It was interesting. I guess the difference in Europe is that the many companies are surviving.

That would have been between '82 and '84, for those too young to know that even happened. There used to be ONE phone company and only landlines.
.

[loki]

Yeah, even China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and others have better, faster and cheaper internet than we do. Theirs are not corporate controlled for massive profits. funny, the internet was built by the US taxpayer, and now , like so many other things, we are handing the whole structure, control, and operations of it over to a small few private corporations so they can use what we already paid for, to ream us royally out of every last dime. Isnt America just the greatest place when it comes to things like this..

[wadenelson1]

Can anyone offer a URL to a really good article explaining the Net Neutrality issue?

The above article assumes we all already know what the battle is about.

[momofvegasgirls]

I was just thinking the same thing.

[sodisenchanted]

wadenelson1, you might try this one. It offers a lot of info without getting too technical.

http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html

[Tom Joad]

good reference.

[Sing Out and Slap Iron]

Nice explanation. Thanks for the link.