FCC Chairman Announces Fake Net Neutrality Proposal

This morning, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that he will finally seek a vote on President Obama's top tech issue, "Net Neutrality." There's just one problem: 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.

Now that the FCC's proposed rulemaking has been officially announced, it will be deliberated and modified for the next three weeks, leading to a final vote on Dec. 21.

According to the Times, the proposal:

• Fails to restore the FCC's authority over Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and AT&T. This presents the unecessary risk that the new rules, if passed, will be swiftly rejected by the courts. Any other future rules related to the Internet, such as competition policy (which would give you more choices than your expensive monopoly cable and phone company) would suffer the same fate if the chairman continues to avoid the politically challenging but absolutely essential moves that would restore his agency's authority.
• Offers weak protections against "paid prioritization." That is, it could allow ISPs to create tolls on the open Internet that would favor the traffic of a select few who could pay by slowing down the traffic of everyone else. Worse yet, it opens a loophole for "specialized services" that could lead to the creation of a new "private Internet" for a few giant media companies. You might remember that idea as one of the worst ones in the Google-Verizon pact last summer.
• Fails to make even Genachowski's tepid protections apply to wireless connections using mobile devices. With the inevitable explosion of super-fast wireless Internet connections during the next decade, it represents the most blatant sellout to the likes of Verizon and AT&T. Both companies view wireless Internet and phone service as the future. And both companies are among Washington's biggest spenders on PR firms, lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Despite all this, there is still cause for optimism. Genachowski needs three votes to pass the proposed rules. The chances that either Republican commissioner will vote for the measure is near zero, leaving the chairman reliant on Democratic Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps. Both are stalwart public interest advocates who have repeatedly expressed their support for strong Net Neutrality rules.

Copps and Clyburn are the "deciders" for the next three weeks, and they have both demonstrated over and over that their top priority is the interests of the American people. If that holds true, there may be a happy ending to this story.

Stay tuned for continued analysis as more information becomes available.

 

Follow Josh Silver on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freepress

Comments

[GlobalUprising]

06:55 PM on 12/14/2010

The corporations make billions more in profit, and we loose. This really could be the end of free speech on the internet.

[gws1968]

02:14 PM on 12/07/2010

We are getting used to being "sold out" and that's not good! *sigh*

[lthuedk 1]

11:44 PM on 12/04/2010

Nice pick, President Blue Dog.

[Netguru]

04:01 PM on 12/03/2010

I remember when AOL and Prodigy started this whole "Consumer Internet" thingy. It was through dial-up only. Dial-up internet is the sole reason the Internet exists today. If it wasn't for dial-up, we would literally still be in the dark ages. The next big thing was the ability for consumers to switch ISP's with relative ease. I know I went through at least three separate dial-up ISP's. The reason I switched was simple; they each priced their warez cheaper and cheaper until it was a flat rate. Pay once and use all you can absorb. What eventually happened to the all mighty AOL? True competition wiped out AOL's unbelievable usage rates (pay per bit) and eventually the company. Without TRUE competition, some of us text based gamers would still be paying AOL 300.00+ a month to play those, what now look ridiculous, text games.

My point to all this rambling is without TRUE competition, the Internet would have never truly become what it is today. A world wide phenomenal equalizer.

The FCC, as well as most government agencies and both sides of the aisle should be ashamed at what they have done to destroy the once powerful American middle class (unintentionally or more likely intentionally). This decision is just another example that provides another nail in the coffin to shut down the once great American middle class.

Now that my diatribe is over....Unbelievable!!!!!

[liaisonsus]

12:18 PM on 12/02/2010

On whose side is Mr Julius Genachowski ? He is a Public Servant on our payroll and has to serve us, not the big Cable Companies..There is a big conflict of interests here and it needs to be addressed...

[SovereignJohn]

10:09 AM on 12/02/2010

They screwed us over with Radio licensing and then screwed us over again with TV licensing. Now Internet which was built with taxpayer money is also going to be handed over to the multi International Corporation Conglomerates!!!!!! Soon alternative data streams will be slowed down to a crawl while FOX INFORTAINMENT, MSNBC INFOTAINMENT are speeded up and allowed to call themselves News Sources!!!!!!

It doesn't have to be this way. Those who control the news control the future. We the People need to keep control of our news to keep control of our future.

[tlcpro]

08:37 AM on 12/02/2010

Just another example of a corporate take-over. I see in my crystal ball, a time where the government is replaced by a one world corporation. There will not be presidents, but one supreme CEO.

[SovereignJohn]

10:11 AM on 12/02/2010

It's gonna be worse than that unfortunately. Introducing CyberInterNetics 2052CE http://t.co/qDtHlMd

[RobertJSawyer]

12:11 AM on 12/02/2010

Net neutrality is one of the most important issues facing the Obama administration; it's on his watch that the battle will be either won or lost. We need to decide whether the Web is egalitarian or a commercial enterprise -- and, for all our sakes, we should hope that it ends up being the former. -- Robert J. Sawyer, author of the WWW trilogy about the future of the Web

[Fourth Horseman]

08:38 AM on 12/02/2010

Good post and I want to add one thing.

This CAN'T be a half measure, which would be even worse than nothing. This will give people the false sense that the matter is settled and people will stop paying attention.

Without millions of eyes on them these HUGE companies will have the internet LOCKED UP in no time and then, it will be too late.

NO HALF MEASURES. Either REAL Net Neutrality or don't bother.

[ArchAngel]

09:29 PM on 12/01/2010

President Obama - Wall Street's Hand Maiden.

[LawTalkingGuy]

10:35 AM on 12/02/2010

Well in two years you get to ditch the hand maiden and go for the iron maiden, if you think that will be an improvement. If you mean an improvement in the rate at which the wall street and corporate elite finish their fire sale of everything America stands for, vote republican.

[EagleSpirit54]

03:07 PM on 12/04/2010

Um, at least we KNOW what we'll get with the Repugnicans. The Dem side of the aisle is hardly the party that I grew up with. (Don't be alarmed, I would always vote for the Dem, but I feel that my party has been failing in a truly toothless way for far too many years. Wish we'd grow some balls there.)

[MadAs]

08:28 PM on 12/01/2010

Net neutrality: Just another victory for the corporatists using the politists to waver the flag of the progandists.

Duped again, the public at large, even if only long enough to subsequently realize we once again found out too late.

[Kenny Wolf]

08:03 PM on 12/01/2010

Common sense is at an all time low, big business owns this government and most all of our "elected" officials work for them. The regular Joe, that's you and me haven't got a leg to stand on or a voice in Washington. While this post looks like every other post on this site, there is one major and profound difference, the outcome of the information provided here says wake up casual internet user, tomorrow your Internet might be a pale censoreded corporate owned and run worthless propaganda machine that you will have the privilege of paying a whole lot more to use and with far less or no access to important uncensored information, web sites deemed dangers to national security will vanish. This version may become a ghost of the one we take for granted at the moment. ninety eight percent of the rest of the other posts here right now will not impact you the end user in such an immediate and profound way, This post is different, this issue touches each and every one of us with its immediacy, this issue is Net Neutrality. This post says that we are in real danger of loosing control of the Internet, the entire Internet, to the scheming manipulative hands of big business and in effect loosing the inherent freedoms of the information for which this Internet provides. This is the last true and open forum for freedom of thought and communication left. We must rise up and stop this, NOW!

[liaisonsus]

12:24 PM on 12/02/2010

AMEN

[EagleSpirit54]

03:11 PM on 12/04/2010

So true. This is the end of freedom of speech and freedom of the press as we know it. Everything else has been taken away from us, this is the ONLY way that we, the people, can stay connected anymore. We lose this, we lose the last of our functioning power, our democracy. May as well just burn the Constitution.

[truthisneeded]

08:03 PM on 12/01/2010

basically it seems that the FCC is proposing a new internet that favors the rich and corporations and leaves everyone else behind

[schuylerryan]

07:43 PM on 12/01/2010

I agree with comcast on this one. Allowing cable companies to control how fast certain sites are accessed will ensure that all paying customers have a fair amount of bandwidth. In particular comcast was having trouble with customers using a site that downloaded huge amounts of information while taking speed away from other customers. I do believe their should be restrictions. I do not think a service provider should be able to slow down a site that does not directly effect the quality of its service for example.

[MadAs]

08:49 PM on 12/01/2010

Your premise, "customers using a site that downloaded huge amounts of informatio­n while taking speed away from other customers" is flawed. If you want to make that sort of thing fair and equitable, you would have to have a water meter on each user's downloads.

How would you like a water company that only gave you a 10-minute water glass refill (forget the shower) while it served its can-payola customers with the gushers they enjoy squandering.

Comcast, as a prominent example, is now crouching in the shadows ready to slow access speeds for anything it isn't directly profiting from.

We already have the Whatever-Sponsor Rose Bowl, Cotton Bowl, etc., I guess it's just going to be one's choice from now on: The Comcast Internet or the Verizon Internet but no Interconnection allowed -- meaning, you can't watch both games unless you are willing to pay. And You Will.

[Slinkytech]

10:06 PM on 12/01/2010

So you're okay if comcast slows sites down like hulu or netflix to give their fancast site an advantage? Or to force people to watch on cable and order on their VOD service?

[InsuranceForAllAmericans]

07:18 PM on 12/01/2010

I don't fear an OPEN INTERNET. Are right wing fanboys afraid that free access to the internet will stiffle their drive for authoritarian rule?

[cb750]

06:33 PM on 12/01/2010

Liberals should be cheering that the internet has run for 25 plus years without regulation. Instead they wish to ball and chain the internet like they have done everything else. How could anyone think gov crates fairness? Look at the banks... the most heavily regulated industry in America... did that solve anything?

All regulations do is create monopolies. Only gov can create the monopolies nobody likes. Regulations will only favor the people with the most lobbying money and power. As with all other industries like banking, pharma, oil regulations will do the following:

1. Create monopolies for the big players.
2. Prevent entry into the market place.
3. Censor material. Yes if the gov believes its job is to create fairness then it WILL examine content to make sure every packet is "fair".
4. Bail outs.
5. Put smaller competitors out of business.
6. Create moral hazard.

The gov has already mismanaged $14 tril. Don't let it destroy the only free market we have. No provider can block for long in a free market. Its not economically viable nor sustainable.

There are no virtuous angels that can manage your lives.

[ThePeacemakers]

07:31 PM on 12/01/2010

They will need to enforce at least 1 regulation.
Anti trust laws.

[ThePeacemakers]

07:36 PM on 12/01/2010

Oh, by the same token:

There's no virtuous market that is going to improve lives.

[LawTalkingGuy]

10:38 AM on 12/02/2010

Exactly, I find it funny that people like CB650 will flat out say that government regulation is bad, WITHOUT comparing it to the alternative, which is corporate dominance or anarchy. But CB750 won't say that anarchy is good, he won't say that corporate dominance of America is good, because those arguments would look obviously stupid. So he just attacks regulation and *implies* that a world of anarchy and dominance would be better, which is obviously false, and so of course his entire point is morally bankrupt.