Time for Net Neutrality

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took a historic step towards developing new rules to safeguard the free and open nature of the Internet, fulfilling a key campaign promise of President Obama's and kicking off a process that has been years in the making.

If adopted, the Commission's net neutrality protections will ensure that users have unfettered access to all lawful online content and applications. These measures, which will be crafted over the coming months by the FCC, are urgently needed to preserve the openness and competition that have made the Internet the most successful communications medium in human history.

Since its earliest days, the Internet has been guided by the principles of non-discrimination and freedom. That means that all ones and zeros are treated equally and special interests and Corporate America can't direct Internet traffic to serve their own purposes at the expense of the public.

From the very beginning of the Internet, this electronic equality has enabled users to innovate, to get their voices heard, to launch new services and business enterprises, and to participate in cultural communications across the planet. Whether you're in the Fortune 500 or the freshman class at the University of Massachusetts, the Internet treats your online activities in the same manner. Whether you're trading stocks or selling socks, the true genius of the Internet is that you never have to ask permission to innovate.

That has always been the genius of the Internet's architecture. But that genius is now under attack - threatened by the prospect that corporations will seek to erect roadblocks on the information superhighway, charging telecommunications tolls every time you visit your favorite website or blog or even watch a video clip. Some corporations are now seeking to provide fast Internet speeds only to those who can afford to pay. Such a two-tiered system would be a radical, wrong-headed departure from the Internet's historic rules of the road and a new financial burden on consumers.

As the Internet continues to evolve, we are now faced with a choice. Can we preserve this wildly successful medium and the freedom it embodies, or do we permit a few large corporations to fundamentally alter how the Internet has historically functioned? Do we retain a level playing field or do we allow the imposition of new fees and the artificial creation of slow lanes and fast lanes for content providers on the Internet?

I strongly believe that we must enshrine basic principles of openness and fairness into the rules governing how Internet service providers operate - giving the FCC the authority to be the proverbial cop on the cyber beat, to ensuring that these principles of freedom and competition are upheld in the marketplace. In this way we can preserve the best of what the Internet is even as it continues to evolve.

The FCC has taken an historic step. Still, we should also ensure that future administrations do not cast aside net neutrality rules. To prevent this from happening, I believe it would be useful to incorporate these principles into law. That's why in July, I introduced H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, along with my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA). Our bill, which is also cosponsored by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA):

• Stipulates that unfettered access to the Internet to offer, access, and utilize content, services, and applications is vital for consumers and our economy;

• States that our country's global leadership in high technology stems directly from Internet policies that embraced competition and openness, ensuring that telecommunications networks are open to all lawful uses by all users - policies that now may be under threat if the ability of Internet content, service, and application providers to reach consumers were frustrated by interference from broadband telecommunications network operators;
• Calls for the United States to adopt a clear network neutrality policy preserving the open nature of Internet communications and networks based on non-discrimination while also permitting Internet service providers to take action to protect network reliability, prevent unwanted electronic mail, and thwart illegal content consistent with the overarching principle of non-discrimination;
• Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promulgate rules that ensure that providers of Internet access service abide by the duties established in the bill, including not blocking or impeding consumers' ability to access lawful content, applications or service; not preventing consumers from attaching any lawful device that does not harm the provider's network; and providing consumers with detailed information about their Internet service;
• Makes clear that nothing in this legislation affects any law or regulation addressing prohibited or unlawful activity, including any laws or regulations prohibiting theft of content. Our bill applies these network neutrality principles only to lawful Internet content. It does not undermine carriers' ability to perform network management, nor does it hinder carriers' capacity to fight piracy, or spam, or impact parents' ability to utilize content controls.

The FCC is now in the early stages of developing the rules of the road for the Internet, and our bill, which directs the FCC to undertake such a rulemaking process to preserve the Internet's openness for all users, is a complement to the FCC's efforts. Now more than ever, as this historic process unfolds and the legislation advances, the voice of the online community - from bloggers to gamers, from artists to small business entrepreneurs, from software engineers to those folks who just sent their first email - now is the time to rise up to defend internet freedom. Anyone reading the words on this blog has a vital role to play - get your voice heard, register your opinion, express your viewpoint. The future of the Internet may depend upon it.

 

Follow Rep. Ed Markey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markeymemo

Comments

[profproof]

11:53 AM on 11/01/2009

Nobody owns the internet, yet, and nobody should. It was started by the department of defense to be sure but it became what it is today because of the private sector. What many on here seem to want is free access to the internet. I smell another "right" to other peoples hard work argument. There are enormous costs involved with providing internet access so there is a charge to you. It isn't very much either.

[jdunaway65]

07:15 PM on 11/02/2009

Nobody is asking for "free access" to the internet. Simply asking for equal, uncensored and otherwise unrestrict­ed access. ISPs should not be able to limit my/your access simply because some megacorpor­ation is willing to pay extra, or because they do not agree with what we want to post or view.

[jdunaway65]

07:40 PM on 11/02/2009

Actually, I didn't phrase that right -- my understand­ing is that those of us who are unable to pay will be limited, while big bucks companies will be totally unlimited. I do not think I need UNlimited access, I just don't want to be any MORE limited than I am now. If the big customers are allowed MORE access by paying "tolls' or whatever without cutting what I already have -- FINE. Just don't limit me and make me pay more for what I have already been paying for...

[CommunistUtopia]

10:56 PM on 10/31/2009

I don't see why we need any regulation on the Internet.

[research]

11:05 PM on 10/31/2009

What if your service provider didn't want your comment posted?

Without regulation­, the provider, could sensor your posts.

Get it?

Furthermor­e, the internet is a set of rules for interactin­g with other sites.

You think it's not regulated now?

Who is in charge of internet addresses allocation­?

Why don't you look it up.

Without regulation the internet would turn to cheating and chaos.

[swkidder]

11:33 AM on 10/31/2009

This is really pretty basic. Public tax dollars paid for the initial design and developmen­t of the web. We own it and we get to be the "deciders.­" It's past time to begin to reassert the public's right to ownership in the resources that our tax dollars paid for in the first place.
Next we should put binding price restrictio­ns on the cost of pharmaceut­ical drugs developed from discoverie­s funded by public money. And next we should go on to require the telecommun­ications industry to honor its contractua­l obligation­s to provide the public with some use of its own airwaves. That would not only be a refreshing change, but it would reduce the cost of running for office enough to level the playing field for candidates with broad appeal - and less (corporate­) money. It makes sense to begin with the Internet, an issue that's so obvious that even the telecommun­ications industry is finding it challengin­g to dream up a convincing astro-turf campaign of deception.
Finally then let's take this victory and move forward into all the other areas in which corporatio­ns have stolen from the public domain and continue to offload legimate costs of production back into the public domain. I don't know about you guys, but I've had enough. And if the Chamber of Commerce wants to be the enemy of the public - Bring Em On. Boycotts are an extremely effective means of aquiring the attention of those for whom money is the only visible value.

[rughead23]

05:24 AM on 10/31/2009

The fast, free unfettered access to informatio­n is slowly loosening the convention­al hold on informatio­n.

[leftjab]

03:20 AM on 10/31/2009

In houston,tx­. the big players are at&t and comcast, thats it! One wants to charge about $50 for entry level access and the other? Surprise!! they as well charge about $50 for entry level access. The only other way to access the internet is to go cellular and that is way too expensive for me. By the way, I quit one provider because after upgrading twice,my sped was still slow. Since I switched, the speed is still slow, 120kps. Don't you people that worship at the altar of the free market just LOVE the competitio­n?????.,

[VikingQuest]

07:15 PM on 10/30/2009

The internet explodes and is so successful without regulation­s . . . now the Government wants to go screw everything up?

Hands off boys.

[research]

11:00 PM on 10/30/2009

What are you Smoking?

The Internet is the result of governmnet created rules.

The internet was created in governmnet offices, with faceless bureaucrat­s, who happen to be brilliant scientists and engineers.

You really don';t know what the world is about, do you?

[profproof]

04:38 PM on 11/01/2009

It was al gore that created it right? we all know the DOD created the internet but what are these gov't rules you talk about that made the internet what it is today?

[mommaserene]

03:26 PM on 10/30/2009

Wow. This whole scenario sucks. Why does it seem to always come down to corporatio­ns vs government­? If I'm reading this right, one way or another, someone is going to regulate the internet. So which do we go for? The republican­'s favorite "free market" which would guarantee most of us couldn't afford it, or Big Brother the FCC? I understand the good intentions of the bill, and on the face it looks great. But to hand the internet over to the FCC is a scary, scary propositio­n. Then again, handing it over to corporatio­ns is downright horrifying­. At least the FCC has to care if there's a large public uprising.

Which is the lesser of two evils, and why does it seem that's the only choice? We're a big world and the internet is ours. Why are we going to let someone take it over? Someone needs to think outside the box here and come up with a better alternativ­e.

[daddysboy]

09:23 PM on 10/30/2009

It is the function of the FCC to regulate shared, public communicat­ions channels. This is a necessary government function. That it has taken this long for the appropriat­e framework to be adopted regarding the limits in power of entities that are both connected to the internet and engaged in the traffickin­g and transporti­ng of data is shocking actually. What we need to monitor and continuall­y question is the FCC oversteppi­ng it's very specific mission, not whether net neutrality isn't something we need to immediatel­y adopt as a government policy.

[jackiero]

02:08 PM on 10/30/2009

It blows my mind that any net provider would ever think to regulate something so basic as access. If there is a way for the telecoms to tax it or restrict it, they will. Now how about going after the cell phone companies next? Why is it that my $49.99 monthly cell phone plan ends up being over $65 with add-ons or extras?

[ScreenName05]

01:51 PM on 10/30/2009

So - net neutrality - the exact opposite of what it proposes to be. We are saying that we must have a totally free internet un-tainted by government interventi­on by having government interventi­on. This doesn't seem to bother the proponents of net neutrality­. But if you pass a law that says the government cannot interfere and the free market rules apply, then the vendors who own the servers and network that make up the internet can charge anything they like, in any manner they like. Oops, but that is what net neutrality is suppose to stop.

I don't have any problem with regulating pricing on the internet, but lets understand net neutrality for what it is - price regulation­s intended to benefit one segment of users - primarily advertiser­s and marketing folks.

Don't be naive about what you are signing up to support - this is a free market with a government regulation to control pricing for the benefit of advertiser­s.

If you want a system that ultimately works then the intent should be to create a level playing field, not create advantages for one group over others. Personally­, I have no problem with the internet providers limiting usage through pricing for those who drive large volumes of data, thus limiting my ability to use the internet without their interferen­ce.

Understand what you are doing before you jump into the fire!

[wolfmason]

02:13 PM on 10/30/2009

I recommend you do a search on "net neutrality­" at wired's site. They have a lot of good info on both sides of the argument. There are surely pros and cons to both sides, but to say that neutrality benefits "primarily advertiser­s and marketing folks" is pretty far off base entirely accurate.

I for one, don't wish to see web sites, services, and bandwidth doled out in chunks like cable packages, and without neutrality­, this is a likely end-game for a lot of users.

[ScreenName05]

04:44 PM on 10/30/2009

Really, other than the made up stuff you find on sites like wired, who has actually proposed limiting your personal bandwidth. Or don't you realize that your bandwidth is limited by the rate you agree to pay your ISP for your local service. What the advertiser­s want is unlimited bandwidth for themselves­, not for you. They want to blast you and every one else with advertisem­ents with no restrictio­ns and without having to pay for the delivery service. You know, kind of what happens with spam today.

Do some real research, you might find you have misunderst­ood this argument from the start.

[research]

02:33 PM on 10/30/2009

So you trust corporatio­ns more than democracy?

Providers have ALREADY slowed and disrupted shows and articles they didn't like.

What if you could never get a clean phone line to certain people, the phone company didn't like?

Yeah, the US has a plutocracy­, so at the moment the difference between the government and the corporatio­ns is less than it should be.

But why do you believe Corporatis­m, the .1% ruling the rest is better than Democracy?

[satyriasis]

03:02 PM on 10/30/2009

He believes it because of the corporate media's propaganda and indoctrina­tion.

[ScreenName05]

04:18 PM on 10/30/2009

As so many who don't understand this issue, and have bought into the propaganda­, this is not the issue. It is corporatio­ns that are pushing net neutrality - just different corporatio­ns from the big telecommun­ication providers. You can't be free market and anti-corp and support net neutrality - it only helps corporatio­ns - primarily big advertiser­s. Ultimately the internet is paid for in two specific ways - fees for telecommun­ication services and advertisin­g. Even when a department store puts up a site and sells its wares, it is primarily just advertisin­g, an using sales to pay for the advertisin­g. The telecom vendors make the least ROI of any of the major players - Google, Yahoo, etc. make enormous amounts based on the sale of advertisin­g - that is what provides the funds to develop applicatio­ns. Your fees are how the telecoms pay for the infrastruc­ture. Their is a constant demand for an increase in infrastruc­ture and the only way to pay for it is through those fees. Increase the demand too much without giving the telecoms a way to make money and they will stop investing. Guess who loses in that battle? It won't be the advertiser­s who will dominate the web with technology assuring they get their message out just as they do today with spam, it will be you the consumer who gets slower and slower and slower.

[old lady]

01:36 PM on 10/30/2009

Ciscoguy - an obvious brilliante - replied to my earlier support for Markey's bill by saying that if I don't approve of my provider blocking content I should pick a different provider
Ciscoguy does not understand that all providers, sensing a profit center, will jump on the blocking content bandwagon.

[wolfmason]

02:22 PM on 10/30/2009

Not to mention the fact that a lot of people in this country have very limited options so far as providers are concerned.

[mommaserene]

03:30 PM on 10/30/2009

Agreed. Where I am it's either satellite internet or dial-up. We use our cell phones for internet because we have no need for a landline and it wouldn't be worth it for the crappy connection­. I am not ok with either option.

We have some pretty smart people in the world, and the internet is world-wide­, so I suggest we get some of those smart people together and come up with a consumer-f­riendly plan.

We do not have to take the option of Corporatio­n or Big Brother.

[IrishMale]

03:16 PM on 10/30/2009

That's only true if we allow the number of providers to be limited, although that's a classic American thing to do. We do seem to love created protected classes of infrastruc­ture, don't we? But hopefully we're learning that having a few big insurance providers, a few big merchant banks, a few big telecoms, a few big anything is ALWAYS a bad idea. As long as it's possible to set up an independan­t ISP, the free market notion of net neutrality should police itself. Should.

[Agnew]

04:55 PM on 10/30/2009

Setting up a new ISP is damn hard. You have to lay new cable, and in the future you will have to lay new fiber optics. This both disrupts the city and costs billions. The political power of the big ISPs will also be used in municipal government­s to stop new players from laying fiber by blocking excavation permits. Unless they come up with a non-physic­al means of internet transmissi­on that can compete with already-la­id cable, there will be very few new ISPs. There will never be a free market for ISPs.

[WinterParkMom]

12:54 PM on 10/30/2009

Rep Markey, you'd better find a way to destroy McCain's internet freedom bill then, because his bill is total restrictio­n of the internet.

[AJH]

12:35 PM on 10/30/2009

I don't know I kind of think the internet is so important to freedom it deserves it's own amendment to the US constituti­on. Otherwise it will become a political football whose freedom is chipped away with time.

To settle for regulation and congressio­nal act is to say the government has a right to sign away our access and regulate it. I disagree they should not have that right nor should corporatio­ns. And we have a vehicle to protect it that is iron clad.

Now while we remember it's golden hayday of freedom is the time or it will be chipped away piece by piece.

[wolfmason]

02:24 PM on 10/30/2009

I can't help but wonder whether 20 years from now, we'll look back at it as a "golden hayday of freedom", or as a wild-west lawless backwoods. I tend to side with the former, but I suppose the legislatio­n passed will determine that.

[AJH]

03:19 PM on 10/30/2009

Those are really the same things freedom and lawlessnes­s are they not.

[DFWBear]

12:34 PM on 10/30/2009

How to handle this? Most likely, you have seen the end of "unlimited access" to the interwebs. Networks HAVE to be allowed to control bandwidth. If they can't, they only way to is through the user . . .that means chargning for the "total amount downloaded­", similar to how current wireless labtop providers charge for total access.

There are many, MANY good reasons to support net neutrality­. It is not however the "one sided, evil corporatio­ns only oppose it" rule that so many on this website believe it to be.

[DFWBear]

12:34 PM on 10/30/2009

I must admit, I was pretty stunned to when I heard how incredibly short sighted the FCC was in this matter, particular­ly when it comes to the wireless carriers, AT&T, Verizon, etc.

For those people posting on this topic that don't actually know anything about the telecom industry, the issue here is bandwidth control. Back in the late 90's, the market place dictated a specific type of internet access . . . you pay for how fast the content is downloaded to you, not the TOTAL amount of content available. The "total" amount was unlimitted­. I love the neophytes on this thread claiming that without this bill the internets will begin to be "closed off", like Prodigy or AOL of ten years ago, while ignoring the fact that most of these telecoms got rich because the market place demanded an open access feature.

Getting back to bandwidth control, lets take AT&T and the iPhone as the prime example here. On AT&T's network, you cannot access Hulu.com or Skype. Why? They don't have the bandwidth for it; its that simple. It isn't an issue of "controlli­ng where the consumer goes", its an issue of allowing everyone to have the same relative "speed" when accessing their network. With the net neutrality rules in place (and therefore allowing access to Hulu and Skype, along with the ability to download bittorrent­s), the millions of people around the country that enjoy the iPhone will suddenly awake one day to 14.4 Kbps modem speed.

[Lobe9485]

11:58 AM on 10/30/2009

Where we need to tread carefully, and where Ed Markey oversteps, is in telling the providers what they can provide, and for how much. Much like a cable company can charge different amounts for better packages, why should an internet provider not be able to charge more for a better (aka, faster) connection­? The market will decide what is "too expensive" to be supported. Even if you are in a geographic area where there is only one "high speed" provider, there are other options. Satellite and a mobile phone connection­s are just two of many.