News >> Browse Articles >> Tech Law
FCC's Net Neutrality Proposal Finding Some Resistance
Jason Mick/Daily Tech
September 23, 2009
Internet service providers have long
fantasized about charging content providers for the use of “fast”
traffic lanes and punishing those who don’t pay by relegating them to
internet “slow” lanes. Faced with overwhelming public
disapproval of such a policy, and pressure from industry giants like
Microsoft and Google, the ISPs backed down somewhat. However,
as some ISPs continue to plot the eventual deployment of such a plan,
an equally heated debate is going on in government over whether
legislation and/or rules should be put in place to guarantee that the
net remains “neutral” and does not monetize content
speeds.
On one side are the Democrats. President Barack
Obama is a strong
supporter of net neutrality, arguing it’s essential for the
“little guy” web startups to have a chance against bigger
players. The Democrats have lobbyist backing, with Google,
and others investing much to try to push through net neutrality
legislation. And the culmination of these efforts was FCC
Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposal
of net neutrality rules yesterday.
The new rules
would restrict carriers from discriminating against content or applications (e.g. throttling P2P traffic) and also call for
transparency as a means of ensuring these requirements are met.
Chairman Genachowski calls the measures “fair rules of the road
for companies that control access to the internet.”
Some ISPs oppose
the measure for various reason. Verizon and AT&T has
long kept information on their data network a guarded secret, and the
proposal would force them to air information on their traffic, which
neither company wants. Other companies like Comcast would be
forced to abandon their secret P2P throttling techniques.
Others like Virgin want to charge for fast-lanes and are declaring
net neutrality “a load of bollocks” as Virgin’s
CEO puts it.
AT&T encourages the adoption of the
rules, but opposes their application to wireless networks. Jim
Cicconi, the company’s top legal affairs man states, "AT&T
has long supported the principle of an open Internet and has
conducted its business accordingly. We were also early
supporters of the FCC’s current four broadband principles and their
case-by-case application to wired networks. To the extent that the
chairman seeks to bolster the FCC’s legal authority to enforce these
principles, we would support him. We have also indicated publicly
that, despite any compelling evidence of abuses that need correction,
AT&T could also consider endorsing a fifth principle relating to
actions that are unreasonably discriminatory and that cause material
harm. Finally, we have never had concerns with disclosure or
transparency regarding network management decisions so long as such
requirements are reasonable.
“[But] we are concerned,
however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of net
neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive
consumer market in America, wireless services,” Cicconi
continued.
While the ISPs have kept their criticism relatively
quiet, Republican think tanks are more vocally opposing the
measures. The telecom industry’s majority owners have funded many of these groups
and has also funded lobbyists who are pushing the Republicans to
block any attempt to put net neutrality in the books.
The
Republicans have already launched
an attack to try to kill the net neutrality. Texas
Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has added language to a
funding bill for the Interior Department that will block the FCC from
gaining funds to regulate net neutrality.
The Republicans
succeeded in killing similar net neutrality legislation in 2006 —
but at the time, they had a tight grip on the government that they do
not have today.
At the end of the day, both the Republicans
and Democrats are serving as the voices of greater powers in our
nation’s economy. On the one side you have companies like
Google (and their associated think tanks) that profit from
democratization of the internet (which support the Democrats).
And on the other side you have the ISPs (and their associated think
tanks) that support the creation of an internet oligarchy, with
tiered levels of privilege and opportunity (supported by the
Republicans) and only a select elite at the fast traffic tier.
Only time will tell which of these significant powers will triumph.
_© 2009, DailyTech

wojtek
about 1 month ago
38 comments
Yeah. Net neutrality... Sort of like other "neutrality" bills that would impose regulations upon radio and TV networks in order to kill conservative talk shows? That's one way to silence opposition, but what those flaming liberals don't realize is that one day the demographics of congress might change and someone else might try to shut down their faves. Not that I would accuse a common libertine of so much foresight and their leaders are obviously too full of themselves to foresee such a possibility. Either way, what I'm saying is that if any such regulation is enacted, both free speech and free commerce will suffer further, and that's the last thing we need in the current economic and political climate.