Tweet
December 20, 2010, 4:48 pm F.C.C. Poised to Pass Net Neutrality Order
By BRIAN STELTER
6:42 p.m. | Updated The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission appears to have the votes he needs to pass new rules for net neutrality.
Net neutrality — which broadly speaking is an effort to ensure open access to Web sites and online services — is on the agenda of an F.C.C. meeting Tuesday in Washington. The F.C.C.’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, outlined a framework for net neutrality earlier this month, touching off a debate about the role of the government in regulating Internet access.
As it stands now, the order would prohibit the blocking of any Web sites, applications or devices by fixed-line broadband Internet providers like Comcast and EarthLink, essentially forbidding the providers from picking winners and losers on behalf of consumers, F.C.C. officials said Monday.
The F.C.C. officials also said that the order would broaden the government’s enforcement powers in the broadband area. They spoke only on condition of anonymity ahead of Tuesday’s meeting on the matter. The F.C.C. order has not been made public.
If approved, the rules “will give some assurances to the companies that are building Web applications — companies like Netflix, Skype, Google — that they will get even treatment on broadband networks,” said Rebecca Arbogast, a regulatory analyst for Stifel Nicolaus, a financial services firm.
The prohibitions, however, are subject to what the F.C.C. calls “reasonable network management,” and they are considerably watered down for wireless providers. “It is by definition a compromise,” Ms. Arbogast said.
Critics have condemned Mr. Genachowski’s proposal as “fake net neutrality.” One of those critics, Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, said over the weekend that the F.C.C. was effectively allowing discrimination on the Internet by adopting weak rules for wireless Internet access.
“Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough,” Mr. Franken said on the Senate floor on Saturday. “If the F.C.C. passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut-off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free.”
He continued, “If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.”
On Monday afternoon, two Democratic commissioners, Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, the other Democratic commissioners, signaled that the order was not as strong as they would have liked, but that they would not oppose it. Their votes along with Mr. Genachowski’s would be enough to approve the order. Two Republican commissioners, Meredith Baker and Robert McDowell, are expected to oppose it. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Mr. McDowell asserted that “nothing is broken that needs fixing.”
Mr. Copps staunchly disagreed. In a statement Monday afternoon, following three weeks of discussions with Mr. Genachowski about modifying the order, he said he wanted to ensure that the Internet “doesn’t travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gate-keeper control that other media and telecommunications industries—radio, television, film and cable—have traveled.”
“What an historic tragedy it would be,” he said, “to let that fate befall the dynamism of the Internet.”
He said he could not wholeheartedly vote to approve the order, but that he would not “not block it by voting against it. I instead plan to concur so that we may move forward.”
Ms. Clyburn said similarly in her own statement, “The open Internet is a crucial American marketplace, and I believe that it is appropriate for the F.C.C. to safeguard it by adopting an order that will establish clear rules to protect consumers’ access. The commission has worked tirelessly to offer a set of guidelines that, while not as strong as they could be, will nonetheless protect consumers as they explore, learn and innovate online. As such, I plan to vote to approve in part and concur in part the Open Internet Order during the F.C.C.’s open meeting tomorrow.”
The Democratic commissioners received sharp rebukes from public interest groups that favor stricter steps toward fair Internet access. Craig Aaron, the managing director of one such group, Free Press, said “these rules appear to be flush with giant loopholes, and the FCC chairman seems far more concerned with winning the endorsement of AT&T and the cable lobbyists than with listening to the millions of Americans who have pleaded with him to fix his proposal.”
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...lity-order/?hp
By BRIAN STELTER
6:42 p.m. | Updated The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission appears to have the votes he needs to pass new rules for net neutrality.
Net neutrality — which broadly speaking is an effort to ensure open access to Web sites and online services — is on the agenda of an F.C.C. meeting Tuesday in Washington. The F.C.C.’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, outlined a framework for net neutrality earlier this month, touching off a debate about the role of the government in regulating Internet access.
As it stands now, the order would prohibit the blocking of any Web sites, applications or devices by fixed-line broadband Internet providers like Comcast and EarthLink, essentially forbidding the providers from picking winners and losers on behalf of consumers, F.C.C. officials said Monday.
The F.C.C. officials also said that the order would broaden the government’s enforcement powers in the broadband area. They spoke only on condition of anonymity ahead of Tuesday’s meeting on the matter. The F.C.C. order has not been made public.
If approved, the rules “will give some assurances to the companies that are building Web applications — companies like Netflix, Skype, Google — that they will get even treatment on broadband networks,” said Rebecca Arbogast, a regulatory analyst for Stifel Nicolaus, a financial services firm.
The prohibitions, however, are subject to what the F.C.C. calls “reasonable network management,” and they are considerably watered down for wireless providers. “It is by definition a compromise,” Ms. Arbogast said.
Critics have condemned Mr. Genachowski’s proposal as “fake net neutrality.” One of those critics, Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, said over the weekend that the F.C.C. was effectively allowing discrimination on the Internet by adopting weak rules for wireless Internet access.
“Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough,” Mr. Franken said on the Senate floor on Saturday. “If the F.C.C. passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut-off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free.”
He continued, “If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.”
On Monday afternoon, two Democratic commissioners, Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, the other Democratic commissioners, signaled that the order was not as strong as they would have liked, but that they would not oppose it. Their votes along with Mr. Genachowski’s would be enough to approve the order. Two Republican commissioners, Meredith Baker and Robert McDowell, are expected to oppose it. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Mr. McDowell asserted that “nothing is broken that needs fixing.”
Mr. Copps staunchly disagreed. In a statement Monday afternoon, following three weeks of discussions with Mr. Genachowski about modifying the order, he said he wanted to ensure that the Internet “doesn’t travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gate-keeper control that other media and telecommunications industries—radio, television, film and cable—have traveled.”
“What an historic tragedy it would be,” he said, “to let that fate befall the dynamism of the Internet.”
He said he could not wholeheartedly vote to approve the order, but that he would not “not block it by voting against it. I instead plan to concur so that we may move forward.”
Ms. Clyburn said similarly in her own statement, “The open Internet is a crucial American marketplace, and I believe that it is appropriate for the F.C.C. to safeguard it by adopting an order that will establish clear rules to protect consumers’ access. The commission has worked tirelessly to offer a set of guidelines that, while not as strong as they could be, will nonetheless protect consumers as they explore, learn and innovate online. As such, I plan to vote to approve in part and concur in part the Open Internet Order during the F.C.C.’s open meeting tomorrow.”
The Democratic commissioners received sharp rebukes from public interest groups that favor stricter steps toward fair Internet access. Craig Aaron, the managing director of one such group, Free Press, said “these rules appear to be flush with giant loopholes, and the FCC chairman seems far more concerned with winning the endorsement of AT&T and the cable lobbyists than with listening to the millions of Americans who have pleaded with him to fix his proposal.”
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...lity-order/?hp
Comment