On Wednesday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski set a vote on rules to protect network neutrality, the principle that broadband companies shouldn’t block or degrade rival web content, services or applications. The vote will be held on December 21st.
The compromise rules would re-establish the principle that U.S. internet users can use whatever software, websites and equipment they like on their cable or DSL connections. Those companies would also be barred from slowing down or blocking content from competitors. The ISPs will also have to be transparent about how they manage congestion on their networks to ensure that anti-competitive behavior isn’t being disguised.
Wireless companies like Sprint and Verizon would also have to be transparent about their “network management” and be barred from discriminating unfairly (such as blocking Netflix because they’d rather you use their video service.) However, consumers would not have the explicit right to use the equipment of their choice, run the software of their choice or use the online services of their choice.
The new rules do not bar cable and phone companies from creating for-pay fast lanes on the net, nor is the FCC re-classifying the internet as a “telecommunications service,” which would have given it clear authority to enforce these and other rules.
Instead, the FCC is using the same shaky legal foundation set-up by the Bush administration, when it created the first net neutrality rules. Those were obliterated in a legal challenge by Comcast earlier this year, setting up the need for these rules, which don’t look to be on any firmer ground and could dissolve the first time the FCC tries to enforce them.
Here are some of the reactions coming in from various experts and stakeholders in the debate.
Marvin Ammori, Visiting Scholar at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet & Society (2010):
“President Obama’s FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, has a reputation in DC of being a “tepid” regulator. From reports of his net neutrality proposal, he’s living up to that reputation.”
“The proposal does not meet Obama’s campaign promises, or Obama’s other agencies’ actions, on net neutrality. It is ‘make-believe net neutrality.’”
Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:
“We commend the Federal Communications Commission for tentatively putting open Internet rules on the agenda for the Dec. 21 Commission meeting and for, we expect, circulating a draft order. As Comcast’s recent actions have shown, such rules are urgently needed.”
“Public Knowledge looks forward to working with the Commission to strengthen the order so that consumers and the vitality of the Internet are protected.”
John Chambers, Chairman and CEO of Cisco:
“Cisco supports the FCC completing this policy debate in a way that maintains an Open Internet, allows network operators to engage in reasonable network management and preserves incentives for investment in network infrastructure.”
“We look forward to Chairman Genachowski making progress on the key goals of his National Broadband Plan such as additional spectrum for wireless broadband and reforming Universal Service for broadband.”
John Doerr, Partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers:
“Maintaining an Open Internet is critical to our economy’s growth and Chairman Genachowski and his team deserve kudos for their thoughtful leadership.”
“This effort is a pragmatic balance of innovation, economic growth and crucial investment in the Internet. We look forward to working with FCC to protect these principles so the Internet grows and thrives for generations to come.”
Ron Conway, one of the founders of SV Angel, a Silicon Valley early-stage investment fund:
“As an early-stage venture capitalist for over 20 years, I treasure the Internet as an engine for innovation and economic possibility-protecting its openness is vital to protecting America’s critical technological competitive advantages.”
“I am proud to join a diverse coalition in support of the Chairman’s proposed rules of the road. This light-touch, common-sense framework will help protect investment and innovation throughout the ecosystem and will ensure certainty in markets for years to come.”
Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president:
“We are pleased that the FCC appears to be embracing a compromise solution.”
Continue reading …
Comcast Executive Vice President David L. Cohen:
“For many months though NCTA, we have been working very hard with Chairman’s Genachowski’s office, the Congress, and a broad array of stakeholders to try to find a fair and appropriate balance that would enable the FCC to codify a light regulatory approach that would protect the openness of the Internet but that would also protect the continued investment and innovation that has made the Internet the vibrant and dynamic place that it is today. As we have said previously, this was never about whether the Internet should be free and open as the ISP community (including Comcast) has long pledged to take no steps that would threaten the openness of the Internet — the issue was how the FCC could accomplish this objective without also creating unintended and adverse consequences.”
“We believe Chairman Genachowski’s proposal, as described this morning, strikes a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace and the certainty that carefully-crafted and limited rules can provide to ensure that Internet freedom and openness are preserved.”
“By taking an approach that is similar to that which was negotiated last fall by key legislators, Internet content and application companies, broadband ISPs, and other stakeholders, we believe there should be a strong consensus for the Chairman’s approach. Most importantly, the approach the Chairman has outlined will remove the cloud that Title II regulation of broadband would place over continued innovation and investment in the Internet.”
“We applaud the Chairman and the Commission for conducting an open and inclusive process where everyone had the opportunity to be heard. This proposal also reflects the hard work of Members of Congress of both parties who met with stakeholders to forge a workable compromise on this complex issue.”
“We anticipate that the final Order considered by the Commission will incorporate the careful balancing that the Chairman described in his remarks today. While we obviously will need to see the actual language of the final Order, the careful and balanced approach laid out by the Chairman today has our support.”
Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy and communications:
“The stated objective of this initiative – an open Internet – is not at issue.”
“In fact, we are the only major ISP that has publicly embraced non-discrimination obligations for both its wireline and wireless broadband Internet access services. We are walking the talk. We are doing so because we believe this is good for our customers and good for our business.”
“The only issue is the extent to which the FCC should regulate in this area. In this fast-moving marketplace, inappropriate regulation can be very harmful to consumers, companies, and the ability of this industry to create jobs, provide new services, and be an engine for economic growth. That is why it is so important that policymakers get this right.”
“In tackling this issue, the FCC is hamstrung by an antiquated communications statute. That’s why this issue should be addressed by Congress. Verizon has consistently called on Congress to update and reform the statute and adopt public policies that will encourage an open Internet, as well as promote investment and innovation across the Internet marketplace.”
“If the FCC decides to act on the net neutrality issue, we urge the commissioners to recognize the limitations of the current statute and the rapidly changing conditions in the marketplace and make any rules it adopts interim, rather than permanent. Specifically, the commission should consider the framework of the Waxman proposal, including its sunset provision. The FCC’s authority to act in this area is uncertain, and Congress has indicated a strong interest in addressing this issue; interim rules would encourage congressional action, while showing appropriate deference to Congress.”
Sascha Meinrath, Director of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative:
“Initial reports on the proposal indicate that it mirrors AT&T’s positions at the literal expense of the general public. In their current form, the rules would allow wireless providers to continue to block consumer’s access to lawful applications, content, and devices; open the door to a ‘pay to play’ Internet where providers would create toll roads to prioritize the traffic of the largest and richest media conglomerates and content companies; and, permit all broadband providers to block consumer’s access to applications and content they deem unwanted or harmful under the guise of ‘reasonable network management.’ Lastly, the Chairman’s abandonment of the certainty provided by Title II authority, all but guarantees that the proposed rules would not withstand a judicial challenge.”
“Without fundamental changes to the current order, the Chairman’s proposal will be a great victory for the largest telecom corporations and a sound defeat for those working to support innovation and the economic vibrancy that an open Internet facilitates. The New America Foundation is hopeful that the Chairman’s office and Commissioners that support open Internet rules will develop a final order that uphold the FCC’s responsibility to protect consumers and Internet freedom.”
Google:
“No comment.”
Here’s is the full text of Chairman Genachowski’s speech:
Pages: 1 2 View All
Under pressure from Sen. Joe Lieberman, Amazon.com kicked WikiLeaks.org off its servers. But why stop there? There's all kinds of controversial customers the cowardly but remarkably convenient e-tailer can flee from.
And yet the newspaper went out of its way to get early access to the confidential diplomatic cables obtained by its sometime partner Wikileaks, and published much of the information they contained. The newspaper almost certainly violated the ridiculous Espionage Act in the process. Will Amazon evict the New York Times from the Kindle then? Or perhaps wipe the offending information remotely, George Orwell style, as Amazon has shown itself perfectly capable of doing?
