FCC Chair Backs Network Neutrality; Data Transparency

rated by 0 users
This post has 4 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,388
Points 1,192,465
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Tue, Sep 22 2009 5:35 PM
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been a busy beaver as of late; we've previously discussed his thoughts on the importance of the Internet and the FCC's request for comments on how its Internet development funds should be allocated and used. The FCC chair spoke at the Brookings Institute in Washington today; his speech emphasized the FCC's support for network neutrality.

If you aren't familiar with the arguments, or haven't paid attention, the question of net neutrality has been percolating for years, at a steadily increasing rate. The question at the heart of the debate is simple—should all Internet traffic be treated equally? Telcos and ISPs generally argue that it shouldn't; Comcast has particularly come under fire for stealthily throttling P2P traffic. ISPs against a neutral network have tended to argue that packet shaping and bandwidth throttling would allow them to improve customers' quality of service. This claim has been met with scorn on multiple fronts; there's a general concern that ISPs could use their network control to create artificial scarcity or low-speed connections. In a tiered network, popular websites might end up treated somewhat like cable TV—basic service is one price, but if you want premium (read: unthrottled) access to YouTube, that's an extra quarter a month. Similarly, customers would be able to play online games with a standard package, but if you want to see your ping times below 250, better be prepared to pony up.



The FCC chairman's plan is to expand the organization's mandate. Currently, the FCC is charged with ensuring that consumers have access to lawful Internet content, are free to run applications and use services, choose the legal method by which they will connect, and are entitled to competition among network providers. Genachowski would add two additional charges to this list: nondiscrimination and transparency. Nondiscrimination is self-explanatory—ISPs would be forbidden from throttling connections based on data type. The transparency rule would require ISPs to explain and detail their network management principles to potential subscribers. That's a far cry from the modern system, where EULAs are subject to change without notice, and stipulations (if mentioned at all) are buried 60 pages deep.

Genachowski's address is best understood within what is, apparently, the framework of a new government mandate. When the FCC chairman stated his belief that the Internet was the 21st century's equivalent to the highway system, his remarks were taken relatively lightly. Within the last two months, the Federal Communications Commission has announced that it intends to build a comprehensive map of broadband availability within the United States, laid the smack down on Comcast, argued with AT&T over whether or not gaming is a basic broadband need—all with the goal of creating a universal broadband policy.

Thus far, even the ISP responses to Genachowski's speech have been mild, but many of the companies who have phoned in their comments are drawing a line between the FCC chairperson's speech as it might apply to wired networks vs. wireless ones. That's a potentially meaningful distinction—should ISPs have more freedom to control what's flowing through the air when available bandwidth is far more restricted? The FCC may or may not discuss the wireless angle; it's possible that the areas of the US that are poorly served by broadband options at the moment aren't very wireless-friendly. Whether the commission directly takes up the issue or rolls it into the question of network neutrality as a whole, the principles at stake will literally effect the development and provisioning of Internet access for years—even decades—to come.
  • | Post Points: 50
Not Ranked
Posts 12
Points 165
Joined: Sep 2009
neilganon replied on Tue, Sep 22 2009 10:04 PM

It's great to see the government take a stand on net neutrality. This is an important step in securing this for our country. It boggles my mind how malicious ISPs seem when it comes to the rules and standards they try to implement for the web.

e8400 | HDT-s1823 | 4GB| EP45-UD3P| 8800GTS 512MB | WD 500GB + WD Black 1TB | p182

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 10
Points 110
Joined: Sep 2009
sonicb00m replied on Tue, Sep 22 2009 10:11 PM

I wish the FCC would back off of the internet...It's not like the U.S. owns the internet, if anyone was to take control and regulate it, I would much prefer some sort of international commitee to do so.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 12
Points 165
Joined: Sep 2009
neilganon replied on Tue, Sep 22 2009 10:19 PM

sonicb00m:

I wish the FCC would back off of the internet...It's not like the U.S. owns the internet, if anyone was to take control and regulate it, I would much prefer some sort of international commitee to do so.

IMO I think the FCC is in the right by trying to keep the internet FREE of regulation by corporations. In a sense its regulation to prevent others from doing so.

e8400 | HDT-s1823 | 4GB| EP45-UD3P| 8800GTS 512MB | WD 500GB + WD Black 1TB | p182

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 1,076
Points 11,645
Joined: Jul 2009
Joel H replied on Wed, Sep 23 2009 7:09 PM

Sonic, you're misperceiving the situation. The FCC's goal is to keep all Internet traffic flowing the way it flows now. The regulations they want would prevent companies from charging you extra cash to watch YouTube or use eBay.

They aren't regulating the Internet so much as they're trying to prevent ISPs from chopping it into tiny pieces.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (5 items) | RSS