New FCC Chair Brings Us One Step Closer to Net Neutrality

Julius Genachowski, a strong proponent of Net Neutrality, was confirmed by the Senate late Thursday to be the influential chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Genachowski is well regarded in the technology community, both as former chief counsel to Reed Hundt, an FCC chairman under President Bill Clinton, and as a private-sector entrepreneur and venture capitalist.

He's also a former law school classmate of Barack Obama and the principal architect of the president's technology and innovation plan, with Net Neutrality as its centerpiece.

In the front seat

The plan was unveiled during a November 2007 event, during which then-candidate Obama pledged to "ensure a free and full exchange of information" and to "take a backseat to no one in my commitment to Network Neutrality."

Expect Chairman Genachowski to turn his attention to bringing more choice to a broadband market controlled by a cartel of phone and cable companies.

He's also expected to move decisively to open valuable spectrum to broadband innovation and access -- something his predecessor, former FCC Chair Kevin Martin, claimed as a part of his own legacy at the agency.

Still, more needs to be done.

Genachowski's influence on Obama has already yielded forward-looking Internet policies included in the government stimulus package passed in March. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act set aside billions to connect more Americans to broadband, and required that the largest chunk, $4.7 billion, be spent building networks that abide by Net Neutrality.

"A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way," Obama's change.gov policy platform states. "Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

With Genachowski at the helm, the FCC needs to move decisively to limit phone and cable companies' encroachment on user choice on the Internet.

Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr

Comments

[Ozarks]

More Choice would mean Ala Cart. No more of being forced to buy a "tier bundle" of say 200 channels just to get a channel that you would like to watch, Like MSNBC.

[Firbolg]

There are similarities between the net neutrality issue and single payer healthcare.
In both issues corporations are pushing to skew the US market for their services in favor of their bottom line and away from the interests of consumers using lobbying and campaign contributions.
Let’s hope Obama backs Julius Genachowski better than he is doing for those who advocate true world class healthcare reform.

[Lori Bowles]

I wonder how they feel about public/community/ radio

[j mcdouglas]

Finally!

I hate my local internet provider.

I want a decent company that can offer a better rate.

Why are Republicans so adverse to challenging these monopolies if they really believe in a free market?

Obviously that's a rhetorical question.

[historymatters]

Excellent news. I hope Free Press, Save the Internet, Media Matters, Move On, and everybody individually will keep an eye on the FCC's actions during the Obama administration. This agency's actions with regard to the Internet and mass media in general are going to have huge impacts on American culture, politics, economy, education, and so much more.

[edva]

Open communication, carrying on the potential that television's inventor had for it, but which was hijacked by commercial interests. Nice to believe that might not happen to the 'net. Sure would be nice if the FCC gave us back the TV airwaves that are rightfully ours however. Shouldn't have to pay to watch garbage interspersed with commercials for more garbage.

[ezeflyer]

Net neutrality is central to restoring democracy after decades of plutocracy.

[Timothy Karr - Huffpost Blogger]

They will tell you that it will. But they're wrong. Net Neutrality lifts all boats. The future success of the Internet rests on our ability to keep it open, affordable and without limits.

Big phone and cable would rather restrict full access to the Internet in order to protect their legacy phone and cable television businesses (many people are now making calls and watching TV via their high-speed connections and they don't like that).

Most of them -- especially Time Warner Cable, Cox and AT&T -- also seek to keep access limited and costly. They're thinking is that it's better to treat the information flow like fine wine (costly and scarce) rather than water (cheap and abundant).

This is just a smokescreen to cover their having to invest in better, faster infrastructure to meet exploding consumer demand.

My theory is that the first company that embraces an open, fast and ubiquitous Internet is the best poised to profit from the inevitable growth and innovation it will yield. If only they would listen.

[larry278]

Stupid question: Could net neutrality have adverse consequences for Verizon, Comcast & other big players?

[NicoloM]

I understood that the carriers were trying to get authority to charge in the future, not that they already had done so. So they aren't being damaged, except to the extent that they won't be able to take what is a quasi-public utility, and squeeze more money out their position. Similar to monopolies, that improves the immediate quarterly bottom line, but in the long run, even GM loses initiative. That's why competition to be faster and better referenced by TK will keep them in the forefront.
I'm interested to learn if internet carriers already are charging more for content they don't control? It would be a real concern if public processing of issues was reduced because of fees, or restrictions which would limit the openess of information.