FCC Proposes Net Neutrality Rules, Republicans Vow Fight

[CoFree]

Obama's FCC Proposes Net Neutrality Rules, Republicans Vow Fight, Telecoms Divided
by: Jason Mick
Democrat............................................Republican

Jedi Master... err... President Obama is fighting for net neutrality, while the Republicans are opposing him.
The battle over whether internet bandwidth will be neutral or relegated into internet "slow" and "fast" lanes is becoming heated

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.

[hav0kk]

Just another way for the powers that be to keep their main objective going in a shrinking economy. What's next?

[CoFree]

Anti-net neutrality language removed from key bill

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and his staff earlier this week proposed new net neutrality rules that would block internet service providers (ISPs) from discriminating against internet traffic by traffic type (e.g. P2P traffic) and prevent the sale of expensive "speed lanes" and relegation of independent sites to "slow lanes". It would also require ISPs to be more transparent about their traffic practices. The proposal quickly was threatened, though, and the rest of the week Genachowski and his Democratic colleagues in Congress were left scrambling to try to save the initiative.

The measures were placed in jeopardy by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R-Texas) language which she planned to insert into an Interior Department appropriations bill. The language would blocking financing enforcement of the new FCC rules – many Republicans supported the measure.

However, opponents on the other side of the aisle pointed out that the ownership of ISPs had given the Republican party much support and would stand to profit from the death of net neutrality. And Republicans in many state legislative bodies, such as North Carolina, have supported the imposition of greater government restrictions on telecommunications, in efforts to effectively outlaw municipal Wi-Fi, which might outcompete the overpriced limited commercial ISP offerings that currently exist.

In the eleventh hour, they backed down, though, thanks to the FCC staff reaching out to them. A Republican staffer stated to The Washington Post, "While we are still generally opposed to net neutrality regulations, we have decided to hold off on the amendment because [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] approached us and we are beginning a dialogue."

The real debate will likely occur in October when the proposal is officially presented. It will then go through a regularly scheduled notice of proposed rule making (NPRM), a session in which the ISPs and Republicans will likely push the FCC to relax certain parts of the rules or make changes.

Industry sentiment on the new measures vary. AT&T wants to make the enforcement even stronger -- but exempt wireless services from the provisions. Virgin's CEO, on the other hand, recently remarked that net neutrality was a "load of bullocks". Verizon opposed the measure, while Comcast gave it some praise. Industry groups commented that the bill had some good parts, despite expressing concerns as well.

[hav0kk]

The fact that they are even entertaining the Idea that people who have more money get better service is another violation of equality and should be considered a dirty tactic to manipulate current standards for long term financial gains. This is just a diversion from the real goal of taxation on the internet. That is the Holy Grail. Gain revenue by doing nothing.

[CoFree]

This is just a diversion from the real goal of taxation on the internet. That is the Holy Grail. Gain revenue by doing nothing.

all to true man