Even as the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to approve the order for preserving an open Internet, the commissioners all appeared dissatisfied, saying the rules either didn't go far enough or went too far.
As expected, the Federal Communications Commission adopted the net
neutrality regulations in a 3-2 vote at its meeting on Dec. 21. However, it's
clear that even amongst the majority, the commissioners were not satisfied with
The voting followed party lines, with the three Democratic commissioners
voting for, and the two Republican commissioners voting against. Robert
McDowell, the vocal critic of the proposal, said he was
"disappointed," noting that generally "90 percent of the FCC's
actions are unanimous and bipartisan."
The order, scheduled to go into effect early next year, gives the federal
government formal authority, through the FCC, to regulate Internet traffic,
although it is by no means a "final decision," Mike Manzo, chief
marketing officer of wireless supplier OpenNet told eWEEK.
There is substantial opposition, and either Congress or the
courts might overrule the regulations, he said. In fact, hours before the vote,
there were reports that Verizon will consider a lawsuit protesting
, a Republican from Kentucky,
said lawmakers would "have an opportunity in the new Congress to push back
against new rules and regulations."
The order addressed three major issues: transparency, blocking, and
discrimination. Fixed-line broadband providers such as Comcast and Qwest will
be required to give subscribers information on Internet speeds and service.
They are also prohibited from blocking access to sites and applications that can
compete against its own products. However, there is clause allowing
"reasonable" network management to enable providers to restrict
access to sites that could be deemed "harmful."
McDowell noted that "reasonable" has many different definitions.
On forums and chat rooms online, viewers following the FCC open meeting
wondered whether access
could be legally restricted under this rule.
The rules "do not guarantee anyone's right to an open Internet or ban
paid prioritization" by ISPs, said the Computer and Communications
Industry Association, a group that supported the much stronger
net neutrality proposal
from earlier this year. Even though there was no
outright ban, the order contained language discouraging phone and cable
companies from offering faster, priority delivery services to Internet
companies willing to pay extra.
FCC member Michael Copps would have preferred a flat-out ban on paid
prioritization. "I had hoped we would move full throttle," Copps
said, referring to some of the watered down elements of the net neutrality
rules. He'd seriously considered voting against the measure but decided that if
he did, "the wheels of net neutrality would grind to a screeching halt for
at least the next two years."