FCC & Net Neutrality: Part 2
As with Part 1, my comments in bold.
At a Crossroads
Notwithstanding its unparalleled record of success, today the free and open Internet faces emerging and substantial challenges. We?ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet?s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks) and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen at least one service provider deny users access to political content. And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons to be concerned about the future of openness.
Without a doubt the FCC Chairman is correct on these points.? There have occurred violations to Net Neutrality over the years.? I can count them on my hand.? Some of these violations have been mistakes and rectified.? Others were corrected when public voices and other market forces corrected the problems within days or weeks.? Still other violations to neutrality occurred because of violations to the network administrators policy or because an end user was hijacking the network.? Traditionally, these few cases have been individuals using torrenting services that were receiving and distributing high amounts of data round the clock and causing other users at the node to experience low quality service.? In these cases, the private network makes a policy decision to either allow one individual to continue dominating the last-mile, or to violate Net Neutrality for the benefit of other paying customers.
One reason has to do with limited competition among service providers. As American consumers make the shift from dial-up to broadband, their choice of providers has narrowed substantially. I don?t intend that remark as a policy conclusion or criticism — it is simply a fact about today?s marketplace that we must acknowledge and incorporate into our policymaking.
This is an argument that has been used for the better part of a decade and was most likely true up until the last 18 months.? It is probably still true in many areas around the country.? The reason for this is simple.? With the switch to broadband in the early years of the new millennium telecoms were the most suited to make adjustments to their existing networks to corner the market.? One may not like this, but it’s simply capitalism.? And while the monopoly held fast for many years, the free market has allowed new technologies to give consumers more choice.? In my home town of Atlanta, several years ago one may only have 1-2 choices for broadband.? Now they have roughly 7 depending on the exact area of town they live in.? From fiber, to multiple cable and dsl choices, to the emergence of Sprint, AT&T, and Clear 4G wireless.? This progress will continue throughout the nation as these companies move into other cities and push into the suburbs.? Rome wasn’t built over night.? Neither is America the equivalent in size to Seoul, South Korea.? It will take some time.
A second reason involves the economic incentives of broadband providers. The great majority of companies that operate our nation?s broadband pipes rely upon revenue from selling phone service, cable TV subscriptions, or both. These services increasingly compete with voice and video products provided over the Internet. The net result is that broadband providers? rational bottom-line interests may diverge from the broad interests of consumers in competition and choice.
This line of argument must fall into line with a situation resultant from the previous paragraph. i.e. If Comcast provides OnDemand video services, they would be encouraged to block Hulu and Netflix because access to those sites keeps consumers from using the Comcast service.? The argument goes on to say that this can’t be prevented because the consumer couldn’t not choose a different ISP for it’s Internet services and would be forced to be cut off from certain Internet sites.? The reality is that this is bunk logic for multiple reasons.? First we have already established that there is market choice for a growing number of consumers.? Second, the market backlash to this sort of thing would jeopardize the companies reputation.? Thirdly, companies that offer multiple services have greatly benefited financially from “Triple Play” style packages that offer the consumer items like phone, Internet, and television in one bill.? Blocking specific Internet sites in an attempt to bring more revenue in from a competing service is not a successful business model.? For one reason, even in areas where there are limited Internet provider choices, there are always multiple phone and video solutions.? Losing revenue from combined service packages would would be worse than projected revenue lost from a competing service like OnDemand.
The third reason involves the explosion of traffic on the Internet. With the growing popularity of high-bandwidth applications, Internet traffic is roughly doubling every two years. Technologies for managing broadband networks have become more sophisticated and widely deployed. But these technologies are just tools. They cannot by themselves determine the right answers to difficult policy questions — and they raise their own set of new questions.
i.e. “We the government should also have a hand in determining how broadband networks handle their traffic.”? No, the government should not be doing this.? These guys are bureaucrats, not engineers.? Bureaucrats should have the authority to determine how money should be spent or how policy should be enforced when authority to do so is given to them.? Giving bureaucrats the authority to determine how network engineers manage their networks is the equivalent of telling NASA how to design a component on a space ship.? Does that sound like a good idea?
In acknowledging the existence of challenging competitive, economic, and technological realities for today?s Internet, I want to underscore that this debate, as I see it, isn?t about white hats or black hats among companies in and around the network. Rather, there are inevitable tensions built into our system; important and difficult questions that we have an obligation to ask and to answer correctly for our country.
The reality is that a company that has spent billion of dollars designing a private network should not have to answer any questions the government has about taking over regulatory control of something that is not owned by the government.? The FCC has no obligation.? The FCC wants control of the Internet in the same way they have control over radio and television.
When I worked in the private sector I was fortunate to work with some of the greatest innovators of our time. That taught me some lessons about the importance of innovation and investment. It also taught me the importance of developing clear goals and then being focused and practical in achieving them, making sure to have the best input and ideas from the broadest group possible.
Genachowski, look I’m sorry, but “working in the private sector” for IAC, a company that goes around buying up other people’s websites and web technology innovations, and working for Expedia, TicketMaster, and Hotels.com does not qualify you to understand the things that a network engineer understands.? You have a business degree from Harvard.? Fantastic! You understand the business aspect of the technology space.? The guys you are claiming to be on the same ground with have telecommunications engineering degrees from MIT, Carnegie Mellon, and Georgia Tech.? They aren’t trying to run the business side of the companies they work for, and you do not need to be running the engineering side of their businesses.
I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet. I also know that achieving this goal will take an approach that is smart about technology, smart about markets, smart about law and policy, and smart about the lessons of history.
If this is a legit claim, then you can use 20 some odd years of history of the Internet as an indicator that what you are claiming to be a problem is not a problem.
We Must Choose to Preserve the Open Internet
The rise of serious challenges to the free and open Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see the Internet?s doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised. Or we could take steps to preserve Internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation, and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.
In all seriousness how does this make any sense?? Neutralians argue that ISP’s may violate some Net Neutrality code that will stifle innovation and information.? But how is this different from giving that control over to the government?? If – and the word “if” should come with great stress in its tone – any of this banter is true, then American consumers of broadband really have two choices.
1) They can continue under the status quo, with the risk that there would be an occasional violation to Net Neutrality by an ISP that would then be under the pressure of market forces to act swiftly in rectifying the problem; or,
2) Americans can cede control of Internet regulation to the FCC and whatever administration happens to be at the helm, for the “understanding” of network management to change with every change of the administration, and the ability of these regulatory forces to over see the content we send and received and determine if it is legal and if the network is operating under their “guidelines”.? Additionally, consider that regulation would occur under the guidance of individuals like Mark Lloyd and Cas Sunstein who wish to control media and information content from every angle, television, radio, and the Internet.
I’ll take the cautious approach for $500, Alex.
I understand the Internet is a dynamic network and that technology continues to grow and evolve. I recognize that if we were to create unduly detailed rules that attempted to address every possible assault on openness, such rules would become outdated quickly. But the fact that the Internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can, or should, abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network, or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open Internet.
Sure, you would just expect every new technology for network management to pass your “reasonable network management” smell test.? Whatever that means…
Saying nothing — and doing nothing — would impose its own form of unacceptable cost. It would deprive innovators and investors of confidence that the free and open Internet we depend upon today will still be here tomorrow. It would deny the benefits of predictable rules of the road to all players in the Internet ecosystem. And it would be a dangerous retreat from the core principle of openness — the freedom to innovate without permission — that has been a hallmark of the Internet since its inception, and has made it so stunningly successful as a platform for innovation, opportunity, and prosperity.
If openness whas established and respected this far along in the Internet’s history without the government, why in the world would natural openness need policy for openness?
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, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.
Anyone else see Minority Report?
What We Can Do
This is how I propose we move forward: To date, the Federal Communications Commission has addressed these issues by announcing four Internet principles that guide our case-by-case enforcement of the communications laws. These principles can be summarized as: Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.
The principles were initially articulated by Chairman Michael Powell in 2004 as the ?Four Freedoms,? and later endorsed in a unanimous 2005 policy statement issued by the Commission under Chairman Kevin Martin and with the forceful support of Commissioner Michael Copps, who of course remains on the Commission today. In the years since 2005, the Internet has continued to evolve and the FCC has issued a number of important bipartisan decisions involving openness. Today, I propose that the FCC adopt the existing principles as Commission rules, along with two additional principles that reflect the evolution of the Internet and that are essential to ensuring its continued openness.
I think the problem here is that no one really understands is that the FCC can adopt this, but it still doesn’t give it governance over ISP’s without Congress passing a law providing regulatory governance over private corporations.? Which has me considering if all of this FCC nonsense is actually a smoke screen.? Most individuals don’t understand government, and don’t understand bureaucratic oversight and authority.? There is a slim chance the FCC is trying to pass these rules to appease the Neutralians who don’t understand that the FCC wouldn’t have any real power to enforce them without passage of a Congressional bill.
To be continued…
-nick
