It’s a big day for net neutrality. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski officially endorsed net neutrality as the policy for the FCC:
I believe we must choose to safeguard the openness that has made the Internet a stunning success. That is why today, I delivered a speech announcing that the FCC will be the smart cop on the beat when it comes to preserving a free and open Internet.
In particular, I proposed that the FCC adopt two new rules to help achieve this.
The first says broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. The second says broadband providers must be transparent about their network management practices. These principles would apply to the Internet however it is accessed, though how they apply may differ depending on the access platform or technology used. Of course, network operators will be permitted to implement reasonable network management practices to address issues such as spam, address copyright infringement, and otherwise ensure a safe and secure network for all users.
I also proposed that the FCC formally enshrine the four pre-existing agency policies that say network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.
Perhaps more importantly, it looks like he has the votes to pass it through the FCC and make it into policy.
Congressman Markey, "co-author of legislation that would establish national broadband policy and ensure an open and consumer-oriented Internet," immediately had a statement of support as well, as did Speaker Pelosi.
We are on the verge of a huge victory for the open Internet – the tool that has nurtured blogs and created this form of world-wide communication so many take for granted. With net neutrality as the law of the land, the kind of grassroots innovation we’ve witnessed can continue.
Of course, the devil is in the details.
The meaning of the words "reasonable network management" matter. Internet service providers (telephone companies, cell phone companies, cable companies, and other telecoms) will use their lobbyists to push for the loosest, most business friendly net neutrality rules possible, to give them the "freedom" to block content they don’t like or charge you and I more for faster service on certain websites. They don’t want to be regulated like utilities, forced to carry Internet traffic regardless of its source. They’d much rather charge big companies like Google for faster service, leaving smaller outfits – small blogs, for example – in the slow lane.
Still, the chairman of the FCC outlining net neutrality rules that apply to all Internet communications is a huge step forward, and the fact that he has support from Congress as well as most likely has the votes in the FCC makes this announcement even more of an achievement.
If and when net neutrality becomes reality, it will be an Obama campaign promise fulfilled and a fundamental right of the Internet enshrined into law.
33 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
ATT is already leading the telco charge, claiming net neutrality should not apply to wireless. Sprint was not far behind.
Wonder what’s taking Verizon so long?
If and when net neutrality becomes reality, it will be an Obama campaign promise fulfilled and a fundamental right of the Internet enshrined into law.
So Obie-One wins a little one – now he can scam millions more out of people who really can’t afford it $25 at a time.
And then ignore the living shit outta them.
As a verizon wireless internet customer I can tell you they charge metered rates (1.50 per megabyte) after 5 gigs of use a month. When I had some technical issues a few weeks back… they offered to monitor all of my usage.. every single click I made while surfing the web to see if there was a problem. Of course I was appalled that they had the ability at all.
Net neutrality is a joke as far as Verizon is concerned.
Let me explain it for you:
AT&T has the iPhone
Sprint has the Palm Pre
Verizon has the Android
That supplies a fairly credible explanation of their differing attitudes towards net neutrality.
I work in telco – none of the evil big 4, but I did use to work for Sprint for 6 years.
And let me tell you; if your service is metered, it is entirely transparent and available to the carrier. Every call, every second of usage, voice or data, can be hauled up on a screen quite quickly.
The free internet is the best hope for democracy and journalism
I have an idea – maybe we could elect representatives that represent *us*.
ha – just kidding.
I don’t think ‘net neutrality’ means what you think it means. First, metered usage can be neutral as long as the charges are equal for all bits. ‘Neutral’ does not equal ‘unlimited’.
Second, an ISP’s ability to snoop does not impinge on net neutrality as long as it does not use that ability to discriminate between different users. The ability to snoop on un-encrypted communication is pretty much baked in by the fact that they’re carrying the bits in the first place. If you don’t want them to have that technical ability, you have to encrypt your communications.
Hmm, I donno. Verizon was making nice today, but not that nice:
The free internet is the best hope for democracy and journalism
So that’s the argument against – now come up with a palatable reason for our congress-whores to vote *for* it….
Already the Republicans are trying to kill this.
Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, John Ensign of Nevada, Sam Brownback of Kansas, David Vitter of Louisiana, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and John Thune of South Dakota, all Republicans, are out to help their corporate masters and end freedom of speech and access on the net. Unless we want an internet that’s as expensive as health insurance is now…fight back!
And what, precisely, does that have to do with my comment?
I didn’t say they have different attitudes, as they don’t.
Devices are relatively meaningless as they are only a means to access the network, and it’s the network that counts.
I’m just being snarky that Verizon didn’t have a spokesperson comment on the heels of Genachowski’s comments today, as ATT and Sprint did.
Well, whoops! My google alerts aren’t as fine tuned as I thought they were, as I missed that one.
But there you have it; synchronous response from the telco lobby today, and all predictable.
Net neutrality hurts Verizon’s business model less than it hurts those of its competitors, because they aren’t dependent on a cash-cow walled garden smartphone in the way that AT&T is. They’re not in favor of net neutrality legislation, of course; it binds them without raising substantial barrier to entry for future competitors.*
* It’s a mistake to assume that big business opposes all regulation; they’re generally in favor of regulation that excludes competitors from the marketplace.
I wasn’t disputing your facts or assertions – just noting that those are some big-ass companies, with more money to spend than your basic single, or even somewhat banded-together, citizens.
We dance to the tune of them what have more money than we do.
So what good is this bill? There can be no neutrality, if po folk can’t afford to surf the net. I’m grandfathered in with a flat rate at the moment. If I weren’t I certainly could not afford to blog or seek out and share news and information in detail.
Good point. Kind of like the Baucus bill…
I hope that you’ll consider writing a Seminal Diary about the points that you make here; more need to understand them! Great comment.
Expanding broadband access to more demographics is something of a different issue, though certainly related to net neutrality.
That is not a correct reading of net neutrality. It doesn’t apply only to wireless business. It applies to all internet connectivity carriers, and is about the traffic flow methods that carriers use to manage their networks.
So in theory, if net neutrality is not preserved, regardless of your method of internet access, sites like Firedoglake could load much more slowly than say FOX news, if that was what the carrier wanted to do.
It’s about shunting ALL traffic, not just wireless connectivity.
Toss in their perceptions about DKos and the ‘lefty blogs’ raising money for Dems and helping turn this nation around and it’s not simply their ‘corporate masters’ they want to stop.
But Net Neutrality is a **huge** potential economic driver.
The GOP has so far shown zero signs of understanding how. Or why.
Jason, it’s critical for higher ed, primarily for distance learning at both university and community college levels. It’s also critical for K-12.
And there is no reason that taxpayers should subsidize Verizon, AT&T, or anyone else’s profits to make distance learning more affordable and available to all kinds of people — particularly in rural regions of this nation.
Expanding broadband access to more demographics is something of a different issue, though certainly related to net neutrality.
And just who might be opposed to the free release of more information?
Please consider writing a diary about this topic, because the more that people understand this legislation, the better they’ll be able to advocate with their electeds.
And from my experience in June 2006 talking with Congressional aides about this topic, there are not all that many people on the Hill with a good technical grasp of the issues related to NN. I sincerely hope that has changed the past few years (!).
Here is Google’s Public Policy Blog post on the topic of the FCC statement today.
This is incredibly encouraging news.
Thx Jason!
And there is no reason that taxpayers should subsidize Verizon, AT&T, or anyone else’s profits to make distance learning more affordable and available to all kinds of people — particularly in rural regions of this nation.
Why is that?
Without NN, the telcos can charge higher rates for linking to distance learning technologies, which often include videos, whiteboards for interactive online discussions that include diagramming or other learning activites, but which require a higher data rate over the wires (or satellite dishes).
In addition, taxpayers, including those in rural regions, already pay for universities, colleges, and K-12. Why should they now have to hand over extra money (in the form of taxes required to cover increased costs to K-20 to operate distance learning programs) on top of what they already pay?
Imagine if someone said that you could drive your car on the highway, but if you had any CDs, or books, or DVDs in your car then you’d have to pay an additional fee for **each** of them every single time you entered the highway.
Or if the highway said you could bring DVD’s a, b, and c — but not j or k — and also that you could **only** enter the highway carrying DVDs by using an exit 5 miles north of your usual exit?
Think how those costs would add up — as profit for the highway company — but put a damper on the creation of more content in the form of fewer DVDs, CDs, and books. Even at a nickel per book, all those cars entering the highway would end up putting a ton of money into the highway coffers over the course of a year — but the freeway already has the capacity to carry the load.
This analogy isn’t accurate in every respect, but it conveys some key concepts and I hope answers your question.
I have worked in public online education for 10 years.
Expansion needs to be done in a way the benefits people more than corporations for sure.
In fact, one of our primary course design principles is to develop courses that allow students on dial-up to have the full experience. Obviously some of the more sophisticated (especially synchronous) technologies do demand high speed but we do out best.
Aha! Yes! Net neutrality is the way of hte future! This is great!
Jason, thanks. This has been a long, long fight – good to hear there is hope for movement in the right direction.
Particularly cheering in light of the President’s gratuitous slap at the blogosphere.
Universal access is a completely separate issue from network neutrality. Network neutrality as a fundamental organizing principle of the Internet was developed at a time when most Americans had never even seen a computer (let alone used one) and the dominant economic model for computer access was metered time.
Mobile broadband access is likely going to be metered in the long run because the amount of it available is pretty strictly limited by the physics of the situation. Channel capacity and propagation can be finessed to a certain extent, but there are hard physical limits and we’re pretty close to them. Demand is growing rapidly, so there’s no reasonable way to provide it unmetered in the long run. If you find a way around Shannon’s Law or a way to get good propagation out of low-power 50 GHz signals in the rain, there’s a giant pot of gold waiting for you. Plenty of very smart people are spending billions a year on these problems already, of course.
Wired broadband access is likely to not be metered in the long run, because the amount of it is not subject to any particularly strong physical constraints and the cost of provisioning is dropping at a rate such that metering it is unlikely to be economical at any level for very much longer.