FCC chairman: Net neutrality must be preserved
As devices like the iPhone make the Web an even more integral part of Americans' daily lives, it is important that the Internet remains an open system, Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said Monday.
In a speech delivered at The Brookings Institution in Washington D.C., Genachowski outlined a list of six principles he believes the FCC should follow, and also proposed methods tto achieve those principles. In his address, Genachowski specifically cited the iPhone as a "path-breaking" device that has "enabled millions of us to carry the Internet in our pockets and purses."
He stressed that it is important for the Internet to remain a free and open place, noting that recently some broadband providers have blocked or slowed access to Voice Over IP services and peer-to-peer downloading software.
"In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement," Genachowski said, "I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet."
He proposed that the commission adopt the four principles previously laid out by former Chairman Michael Powell in 2004, known as the "Four Freedoms," as well as two new principles he believes should be added to the list. The six are:
Freedom to access legal content
Freedom to use applications of the users' choice
Freedom to attach personal devices to connections in users' homes
Freedom to obtain service plan information
Non-discrimination: Broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications
Transparency: Providers must be transparent about network management practices
The statements are a major benefit for Apple, which delivers music and movies to millions of users through iTunes. Without Net neutrality, bandwidth for content providers like iTunes could potentially be "throttled," or even altogether blocked, by Internet service providers.
But with regards to its own devices and the AT&T network, Apple has also been on the restrictive side -- particularly with respect to Powell's second "freedom," regarding applications. After the Google Voice telephony service was not allowed into the iPhone App Store by Apple, the FCC launched an investigation into the matter. How Genachowski's proposal could affect wireless carriers like AT&T, or handset makers like Apple that engage in exclusive contracts, is not yet clear.
In support of the initiative for a free and open Internet, the FCC launched a new Web site, OpenInternet.gov, Monday. It invites discussion from citizens on the Net neutrality issue, with Genachowski noting that while the goals are clear, "the best path to achieving them is not."
"We are here because 40 years ago, a bunch of researchers in a lab changed the way computers interact and, as a result, changed the world," Genachowski said to close his speech. "We are here because those Internet pioneers had unique insights about the power of open networks to transform lives for the better, and they did something about it. Our work now is to preserve the brilliance of what they contributed to our country and the world. It’s to make sure that, in the 21st century, the garage, the basement, and the dorm room remain places where innovators can not only dream but bring their dreams to life. And no one should be neutral about that."
In a speech delivered at The Brookings Institution in Washington D.C., Genachowski outlined a list of six principles he believes the FCC should follow, and also proposed methods tto achieve those principles. In his address, Genachowski specifically cited the iPhone as a "path-breaking" device that has "enabled millions of us to carry the Internet in our pockets and purses."
He stressed that it is important for the Internet to remain a free and open place, noting that recently some broadband providers have blocked or slowed access to Voice Over IP services and peer-to-peer downloading software.
"In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement," Genachowski said, "I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet."
He proposed that the commission adopt the four principles previously laid out by former Chairman Michael Powell in 2004, known as the "Four Freedoms," as well as two new principles he believes should be added to the list. The six are:
Freedom to access legal content
Freedom to use applications of the users' choice
Freedom to attach personal devices to connections in users' homes
Freedom to obtain service plan information
Non-discrimination: Broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications
Transparency: Providers must be transparent about network management practices
The statements are a major benefit for Apple, which delivers music and movies to millions of users through iTunes. Without Net neutrality, bandwidth for content providers like iTunes could potentially be "throttled," or even altogether blocked, by Internet service providers.
But with regards to its own devices and the AT&T network, Apple has also been on the restrictive side -- particularly with respect to Powell's second "freedom," regarding applications. After the Google Voice telephony service was not allowed into the iPhone App Store by Apple, the FCC launched an investigation into the matter. How Genachowski's proposal could affect wireless carriers like AT&T, or handset makers like Apple that engage in exclusive contracts, is not yet clear.
In support of the initiative for a free and open Internet, the FCC launched a new Web site, OpenInternet.gov, Monday. It invites discussion from citizens on the Net neutrality issue, with Genachowski noting that while the goals are clear, "the best path to achieving them is not."
"We are here because 40 years ago, a bunch of researchers in a lab changed the way computers interact and, as a result, changed the world," Genachowski said to close his speech. "We are here because those Internet pioneers had unique insights about the power of open networks to transform lives for the better, and they did something about it. Our work now is to preserve the brilliance of what they contributed to our country and the world. It’s to make sure that, in the 21st century, the garage, the basement, and the dorm room remain places where innovators can not only dream but bring their dreams to life. And no one should be neutral about that."
Comments
The new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
That's going to be . . . a problem.
The new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
That's going to be . . . a problem.
There is a difference between throttling a users connection because he is downloading terabytes worth of data, and throttling the connection to a spcific competitors website all the time. The former would probably still be allowed, the latter explicitly would not.
One important thing this will eventually force ISPs to more publicly advertise is bandwidth caps should they feel that's the best way to manage their network. Saying that they allow "unlimited" bandwidth and really capping at 5GB then charging huge fees afterwards will be vehemently discouraged in the future (wierless ISPs are particularly bad at this).
The new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
That's going to be . . . a problem.
Yeah, wait till customers can't get the bandwidth they are paying for, it's a double edge sword.
The new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
That's going to be . . . a problem.
As the previous poster said, it shouldn't be a problem, especially not for consumers.
If they were allowed to arbitrarily throttle or block certain types of traffic, users and anyone not in the network delivery business business would suffer. Apple makes a nice revenue from music and video download sales. If the largest ISPs in the US went to them and demanded tariffs for this traffic then Apple would suffer. They would either increase prices to the users to cover costs or they lose the ability to deliver to their largest market. The bounties demanded by the ISPs could become unreasonable. Should they be allowed to do this?
The new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
That's going to be . . . a problem.
I actually agree with this. I really really want to see an end to preventing competitive applications and the like--that's just not cool--but if these companies are forced to allow these bandwidth-hogging applications with no limitation and no regard to network performance, we will be the ones who pay the price. How happy will we be with SlingBox on the road if the network quality is so poor that it barely runs?
I think a good first step is making sure that applications aren't denied because they're competitive, but forcing things on networks has to happen when the networks can support it. AT&T's, obviously, cannot. All you have to do is travel through a major point of use (e.g. parts of Manhattan, San Francisco) and the problem is obvious enough.
AT&T better work hard on upgrading their networks...
However, I don't think it is right that I could effectively subsidise someone who downloads Tb of data using file sharing (and lets face it, for all the talk about Bit Torrent allowing people to share their material easier - it's mostly used for stealing) when I use far less but am on the same ISP.
Effectively some sort of "fair use" needs to be defined, but who defines that is the question.
I think downloading a movie each day on my Apple TV is fair use, but I bet Comcast would like to stop me!
Captain Obvious says that net neutrality bit the dust in 1996 when Microsoft refused to adhere to web standards and included Internet Explorer with Windows 95 OSR2.
What does that have to do with net neutrality?
You're whining about monopolistic competition--a different subject.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
you mean....
DOUGLAS ENGELBART?
Freedom to access legal content
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
And that will be the loophole that ISPs use to try and keep business as usual. ISP will be allowed to do all sorts of things in the name of protecting copyright.
Also, from a story on Ars about this...
"Throughout, Genachowski stressed his own background in business and his concern for innovation. He decried "detailed rules" that would be immediately outdated and made clear that ISPs could still throttle heavy users at peak times and take reasonable measures to manage their networks."
I have no doubt this dog and pony show is just for the masses that will read the story an yell "yipee, we are getting net neutrality!". However, I guarantee you that after the lobbyist get their way the the government's version of neutrality will be a joke.
-kpluck
It doesn't take a genius to see that the approach Comcast et al are taking of throttling on usage, as opposed to (yeah, sure) content, they are just setting up defensive barricades against the inevitable assault on their control of content. With increased bandwidth, we will finally get to subscribe directly to the channels we want from the networks. Ala carte streaming. No more of the obscene 'packages' to which we're held hostage by the Cable companies. No more home shopping and evangelist networks (unless you want them.)
I actually agree with this. I really really want to see an end to preventing competitive applications and the like--that's just not cool--but if these companies are forced to allow these bandwidth-hogging applications with no limitation and no regard to network performance, we will be the ones who pay the price. How happy will we be with SlingBox on the road if the network quality is so poor that it barely runs?
I think a good first step is making sure that applications aren't denied because they're competitive, but forcing things on networks has to happen when the networks can support it. AT&T's, obviously, cannot. All you have to do is travel through a major point of use (e.g. parts of Manhattan, San Francisco) and the problem is obvious enough.
AT&T better work hard on upgrading their networks...
Good points, but how happy would we be when Sling is one of the things they decide to block or throttle? Or if the landline ISPs decide their own VOIP business is growing well, so they shape traffic to given themselves a higher priority, causing our video, VOIP and other latency susceptible applications to suffer?
It is a difficult balancing act between regulating effectively to encourage competition and innovation while also not setting unfair expectations on the providers. I agree totally that the first step is to not allowing them to use their position to an unfair advantage,
Unfortunately, this will probably end up inceasing prices for the heavy users (which may be appropriate); but it probably won't lead to price breaks for the light users who are probably getting overcharged today to help pay for the infrastructure needed by the heavy users.
What does that have to do with net neutrality?
You're whining about monopolistic competition--a different subject.
He's not whining about Apple!?
Net Neutrality will mean nothing until the FCC forces Cable/Telecoms to divest themselves of all content. Cable/telecom should be dumb pipes, and treated as the utility they are.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the approach Comcast et al are taking of throttling on usage, as opposed to (yeah, sure) content, they are just setting up defensive barricades against the inevitable assault on their control of content. With increased bandwidth, we will finally get to subscribe directly to the channels we want from the networks. Ala carte streaming. No more of the obscene 'packages' to which we're held hostage by the Cable companies. No more home shopping and evangelist networks (unless you want them.)
One step in that direction would be to declare that on-demand content be treated as data for the purpose of net neutrality. If the cable ISPs place caps or require a higher tier of service to allow me to rent a couple of movies from iTunes each month, then their on-demand services should have the same usage penalty. Otherwise independent content providers will always be at a disadvantage. This would prevent them from setting caps so low that you couldn't afford the overage charges to buy/rent from a 3rd party content provider.
Live TV is a little more difficult. It's usually a constant stream whether you are watching or not, so it's not taking extra bandwidth when you watch a show. Yes, I know this isn't strictly true anymore; but it's still the dominant model. And my cable box is constantly tuned into a show (two actually), even if my TV isn't on. Whereas with on demand you can assume the person is watching a show they've specifically requested and paid for.
"Not yet clear"? I'll say... Way to totally muddle, and confuse completely unrelated issues, Neil.
I agree that net neutrality is important, as without it, innovation could easily be stiffled.
I realize that the point in your post is quite different (and much broader), but I wanted to respond to this statement (since I hear people often making a similar point): If that were true, what would explain all the amazing internet-related innovations we've had this past decade-and-a-half? After all, we've not had 'net neutrality' during all this time?
Freedom to use applications of the users' choice
...
But with regards to its own devices and the AT&T network, Apple has also been on the restrictive side -- particularly with respect to Powell's second "freedom," regarding applications.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Not at all.
Apple is limiting what is in their app store but apps can be put onto the iPhone thru other means, such as jailbreaking" or corporate applications.
Apple does limit the network connection thru their devices but they do not limit the connection from the wall jack to the etherworld.
The bulk of the net neutrality openess seems to be put on the shoulders of the ISP.
Hardware/software products should not be "required" to do everything but the network connection should allow everything (dependent upon the plan you have).
I realize that the point in your post is quite different (and much broader), but I wanted to respond to this statement (since I hear people often making a similar point): If that were true, what would explain all the amazing internet-related innovations we've had this past decade-and-a-half? After all, we've not had 'net neutrality' during all this time?
ISP's have just over the last few years started to throttle people and say they want web sites like google to pay "their" fair share. They really have not been blocking or extorting web sites and services yet. This is what the FCC is trying to stop before it starts. There really is not much choice in Broadbrand service, at least in my area and I'm in a big city (Boston)
With only a hand full of broadband ISP's out there they could really screw access to the internet up.
While the short-term notion of unthrottled and unrestricted access to all content is appealing, I fear that allowing the government in would be a slippery slope that would ultimately curtail what we can do online.
If enough of the consumer base demands that ISPs not restrict their access to particular content, the providers will have to either comply or lose market share to competitors with a more consumer-centric philosophy.
I think the FCC is a genie that would be impossible to get back into the bottle.