As members of the Federal Communications Commission prepare for a vote on Net Neutrality next week, some of Congress' most Internet-savvy members say the rule before the agency doesn't fully safeguard consumers nor clear even the lowest bar for real Net Neutrality protections.
The group, led by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), sent a letter to all five FCC commissioners saying that the proposal outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski needs to be strengthened in order to get their full support.
Markey was joined on the letter by Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Mike Doyle (D-Penn.), and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.).
As so many in Congress take their cues from powerful phone and cable companies, it's refreshing to see several representatives go against the grain to take a principled stand on behalf of Internet users. The representatives are reportedly already taking heat from the phone and cable lobby for not falling into line to bless Genachowski's flawed compromise.
The letter says the rule must be improved to protect four core principles of Net Neutrality:
1. Nondiscrimination: It must ban "paid prioritization" or Internet payola schemes that give big companies an unfair advantage over smaller competitors, which, according to the letter, is "contrary to the Internet's fundamental nondiscrimination principles."
2. One Internet: It must protect both wired and wireless broadband access equally, they write. "Exclusion of wireless services from open Internet protections could stifle this growth [in broadband adoption]" and "could impede attainment of national broadband goals."
3. No loopholes: It must make "narrow" exceptions for so-called "managed services," which if not clearly delineated "could have significantly negative consequences for consumers and commercial enterprises."
4. A clear broadband definition: It must not allow Internet service providers to repackage the Internet as some other "specialized service," over which the FCC has no consumer protection authority. To allow ISPs to do this, according to the letter, would "[divide] the Internet into fast lanes and slow lanes where only the slow lanes would be under FCC regulation."
| Genachowski: Still Undecided |
In their critique of Genachowski's draft order the House members join Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who wrote the FCC earlier in the week arguing that weak rules would give network operators the green light to abandon Net Neutrality protections and undermine the Internet's open architecture.
The FCC is slated to vote on Net Neutrality principles at its Dec. 21 meeting next week. Chairman Genachowski is now negotiating with commissioners to gain the three-vote majority he needs to pass the rule.
In the give-and-take among commissioners, the chairman has the ability to fix his rule to reflect a stronger Net Neutrality standard. Hopefully, he'll see the wisdom of matching his record with his rhetoric.
Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr
Do people just make this stuff up hoping fools will agree because they are from one ideology or another?
The internet is a privately funded, privately held set of resources. Unless the government wants to pass some pretty draconian laws that would directly interfere with commerce they don't have any basis for doing anything.
And where is this supposed threat - what rights, privileges, whatever have been impeded by anyone? Last time I checked, Netflix was using 20% of the entire internet for streaming downloads of movies at $8.99 a month and Wikileaks published the State Department's database. Doesn't really sound like there is anyone interfering with any rights.
This is what gives the left a bad reputation - silly attacks on businesses when they don't have a clue what is gong on. Business is not bad just because they make money.
Tiered service models are going to happen eventually, because the cost of providing unlimited bandwidth is prohibitive under the current pricing model. And if the builders of the network can't eventually make money they will just walk away.
The reality is that you are already limited in bandwidth through the underlying broadband network - which is basically a time sharing model that gives each and every user x number of time slots on a channel based on the resources available and the number of users at any specific time.
Fiber optic cables and servers don't grow on trees, and they aren't created virtually just because you want to run at a faster rate. As long as you and everyone else want a dirt cheap service, you are gong to ultimately be limited by the total bandwidth available and the number of people using that bandwidth. If you want something more, then get ready to pay for it.
This is just a scheme to set the precedent of internet regulation.
Internet access has always been regulated by communications policy. The question is not whether Internet regulation but how we put in place the right policy to serve the public interest.
Why should governement get involved? Want free internet, take a laptop to a coffee shop, library etc or free place. Want good reliable service in your house then pay for it. The infrstructure to provide you that internet service costs money. Cables, servers , routers, security systems and tech workers (providing people jobs).
Want it? Then pay for it! an that means yes, a transfer of wealth.
This reply is being sent over a connection from a hotel wireless connection that was free with my room
I went to the FCC site again today, only to find that it--conveniently?--is down for "scheduled maintenance" Dec. 17-20, the very time when many irate people are telling FCC to not let the telecoms ruin the Internet. Their vote is on Dec. 21.
You can still email the FCC commissioners at "first.last@fcc.gov": Julius Genachowsky ,
meredith.baker, mignon.clyburn, michael.copps, and robert.mcdowell .
Oh, yeah, Zip.
I propose a compromise, let them charge whatever they want, and we get to charge them that amount plus a dollar for rent on the public right-of-way.
(I learned compromise from congressional repubs)
*House Reps Take WEAK Stand Against Net Neutrality Compromise