FCC Throws Down Gauntlet Over Net Neutrality

The FCC chairman argues that an open Internet is a must for innovation

By Jeremy Hsu Posted 09.21.2009 at 3:57 pm 7 Comments

My Matrix This battle over net neutrality could get ugly Warner Bros.

No less than the open freedom of the Internet is at stake in the war over net neutrality. Now FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has waded into the fray with two new proposals and a clear message: an open and nondiscriminatory Internet is a must for the future.

That stance emerged today in Genachowski's address at the Brookings Institute in Washington. He laid out problems such as the limited competition among ISPs, the economic incentives for ISPs to sell bundled phone and TV service with Internet, and the burden of growing Internet traffic that puts pressure back on ISPs.

But the FCC chairman also sought to address ongoing problems where ISPs degrade or clamp down on certain popular services that use heavy bandwidth to stream or share videos, music and other files. The standout example of this comes from Comcast trying to throttle the peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol BitTorrent in 2008.

Such practices have also prompted worries that ISPs will favor certain Internet content or applications over others, and thereby could choke off business competition and innovation. The FCC's latest response comes in the form of two proposed principles: nondiscrimination and transparency. Those would joint the agency's prior "four freedoms" of the Internet that embody consumer protection rules.

Nondiscrimination would ensure that ISPs can't block or even degrade "lawful traffic" to particular Internet content or applications. Lawful traffic would presumably exclude illegal or pirated content, yet many netizens use peer-to-peer services or websites to share both legal and illegal content. But that gray area did not prevent the FCC from ruling against Comcast in favor of BitTorrent.

Second, transparency would require ISPs to inform paying subscribers about how they manage their network traffic, in the interest of fully informing customers about the services they buy.

The new FCC proposals may come with added teeth, if Genachowski gets his way, according to Ars Technica. Comcast previously questioned the FCC's authority to enforce its "four freedoms" of the Internet, and so the FCC Chairman wants to make those and his new proposals into official agency rules.

The Wall Street Journal looked at the range of fairly predictable reactions to the FCC's announcement. Consumer groups and Internet companies such as Amazon and Google hailed the decision, even as the large ISPs such as Comcast and AT&T made unhappy noises about government regulation.

Regardless of battle lines appearing in the sand, the FCC chairman stressed that open Internet rules would prove a boon for both consumers and businesses alike.

"Some will seek to invoke innovation and investment as reasons not to adopt open Internet rules," Genachowski said. "But history’s lesson is clear: Ensuring a robust and open Internet is the best thing we can do to promote investment and innovation."

[via Ars Technica]

Previous Article: Netflix Awards $1 Million Prize For Improved Recommendations Engine

Next Article: Video: Japan's Robot Tiles Create Infinite Walkway

Want to learn more about breakthroughs in electronics, medicine, nanotech, and more?
Subscribe to Popular Science and enter to win $5,000!

7 Comments

link to this comment

QuietStormX

09/21/09 at 4:40 pm

This is a good thing. Why is internet access and speed so expensive? The internet speed is so slow in the U.S. We should move much faster to download ans stream feature films at home. to D/L in minutes not hours or days later. To watch what you want when you want. Large sharpe and clear on a LCD or OLED screen. The internet should stay open not slowed or cut-off. I want Speed!!!!

link to this comment

washrice

09/21/09 at 10:32 pm

we're not china

link to this comment

ford2go

09/22/09 at 1:04 am

I'm as consumer oriented as anyone, but there are some considerations here. There is a limit to net capacity, and all users have to pay their fair share.

If some services hog significant portions of that capacity, they should either be prioritized or charged accordingly.

I'm all for competition and increased bandwidth. However, if ISPs are forced to allow free access bandwidth hogs, we may get neither.

link to this comment

mitEj

09/22/09 at 7:40 am

@ford2go

Bull.

Pure and simple Bull.

If they had been investing even just 10% of their profits back into their infrastructure we would be on par with South Korea or close to Japan.

Both countries have speeds we can not even dream of here.

Japan for example has 100mb lines to the house for less than we pay for 7mb.

All this would do is force them to invest more into new technology. And maybe stop overselling themselves.

Another fun fact, a large % of the infrastructure in America was paid for by the government the main investment for the telecoms is in the last mile and in the switching equipment they use.

In the US most of the networks have not upgraded in years while the telecoms are all showing record profits from the internet divisions.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you have just not been paying attention to the technical side of this issue. Please do not try parroting the talking points of the entrenched interests without a little research into the facts behind the issue.

link to this comment

morganjames

09/22/09 at 7:55 am

somthing needs to be done to solve these problems

link to this comment

beesnuts

09/23/09 at 11:28 am

thank you morgan...

link to this comment

Oakspar77777

09/23/09 at 2:56 pm

Out here in the sticks, I'm still limited to a 56k modem (had to go online at church to buy a new one when mine died - no stores carried them and the shipping was twice the cost of the modem $7 total). Complaining about speed to me just makes me laugh.

In a socialized system, internet is treated as a utility and is provided better and more cost effectively, but at the cost of choice.

The government could easily put in better service for less cost than private industry can. Then, however, YOU are going to pay for it in taxes, because the government is not just going to put it in at your apartment, but they are going to run it out to my place as well, since all my neighbors are so poor.

Japan and SKorea are tiny places. They can cover their area and compressed populations reasonably. The US is huge.

Stick with private companies and work with your city government for massive broadband wireless access. If you demand the feds to do it, they will attempt to cover the entire nation with it, and you will pay more.