Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality Before the FCC

Posted by Sam Churchill on December 20th, 2010

Michael Copps, the swing vote at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for a set of network neutrality rules, said Monday he will vote for the proposal.

“While I cannot vote wholeheartedly to approve the item, I will not block it by voting against it,” Copps, a Democrat, said in an e-mailed statement today, reports ComputerWorld. Copps, who had argued for more stringent rules, said he would vote to “concur so that we may move forward.”

The FCC is scheduled to vote Tuesday for net neutrality rules proposed by Chairman Julius Genachowski. The commission’s two Republicans have said they plan to vote against the proposal, meaning Genachowski would need support from both his fellow Democrats, Copps and Mignon Clyburn, to approve the rules.

“The FCC will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government’s reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings.

In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling,” says FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell in the Wall Street Journal:

For years, proponents of so-called “net neutrality” have been calling for strong regulation of broadband “on-ramps” to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however.

…Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.”…

Many consumer lobbyists disagree, saying there should not be a double standard forNet Neutrality; one standard for wireline and another for wireless.

According to Minnesota Senator Al Franken, “Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn’t nearly as good”.

Stacey Higginbotham at GigaOm, opines:

“It’s pretty depressing that simple efforts to ensure that lawful content has a chance to make it unimpeded to the user have become a circus of policy efforts designed to entrench the monopoly enjoyed by last-mile providers.

The rules so far seem to enable paid prioritization and usage-based billing while also determining that wireless networks shouldn’t have to abide by open internet principles. If the rules indeed reflect all of that, it may be better not to have them.

With only 3-4 dominant broadband wireless providers in the United States, it’s no wonder we pay more than most countries in the world. Lifting net neutrality restrictions might work in a world where more carriers can freely compete using white spaces, AWS, MSS, and other spectrum that’s becoming available.

But we’re not there yet.

The FCC, after all, weighted spectrum auctions for deep pocketed cellular carriers. They sliced and diced the spectrum into cellular-friendly paired channels to maximize the government’s revenue.

Now cellular operators are hording huge quantities of spectrum in the AWS and other bands. Use it or loose should be the rule. Not preferential treatment.

source: dailywireless.org