|
|
|

Network Neutrality: Game On for Open Networks
Share
By: Roy Mark
2009-08-04
Article Rating:    / 1
There are 3 user comments on this Mobile & Wireless story.
Two lawmakers and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski deliver a chilling message to broadband providers: Consumers have rights, beginning with network neutrality.Taken alone, neither the Federal Communications Commission's quick decision
to investigate the Google Voice ban on iPhones nor the stealthy
introduction of a network neutrality bill in Congress is hardly blockbuster
news. After all, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski came to office this summer
promising broader consumer protections, and the network neutrality bill is
being dusted off for a third time.
Taken together, though, the two decisions represent the first significant 2009
markers in what promises to be an all-out bruising battle to change the
direction of technology policy in the United
States. President Obama promised the change
during his campaign for the White House, and Reps. Ed Markey and Anna Eschoo,
who introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act July 31 in the closing
moments before lawmakers headed home for their August recess, are fervent
network neutrality supporters.
"The Federal Communications Commission has a mission to foster a
competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote
innovation and investment," Genachowski said in a statement after sending
letters of inquiry to Apple, AT&T and Google regarding the Google Voice
flap. "Recent news reports raise questions about practices in the mobile
marketplace. The Wireless Bureau’s inquiry letters to these companies about
their practices reflect the Commission's proactive approach to getting the
facts and data necessary to make the best policy decisions on behalf of the
American people."
The statement represents an entirely different tone from the FCC of the past
eight years under the Republican leadership of Michael Powell and Kevin Martin,
who, it might be charitably said, favored the pro-business attitudes of the
telecom industry. More specifically, Powell and Martin would have waited until
an actual complaint was filed over Apple and AT&T's treatment of Google
Voice. Then, they would have buried it much in the manner of the FCC's
treatment of Skype's complaint about wireless carriers' policies toward VOIP.
Genachowski acted quickly—on behalf consumers—without a single complaint being
filed at the FCC. The new chairman wants to know what most people want to know:
just who, exactly, made this decision, Apple or AT&T? While the iPhone
maker and the carrier can arrogantly stonewall the media and the public,
ignoring the FCC is an entirely different matter, particularly if key
technology lawmakers are waiting in the wings with the telecoms' worst fears, a
network neutrality bill that turns their billion-dollar networks into dumb
pipes.
"Currently, technology investors and innovators face an uncertain future—the
extent of protection for consumers to use the applications and services of
their choice is unclear and under challenge in federal court," Markham
Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition, said in a
statement about Markey and Eshoo's bill. "We look forward to action in
Congress and at the FCC to ensure net neutrality protections are codified in
the law and the veil of uncertainty is lifted."
The legislation would make it illegal for a broadband ISP to "block,
interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any
person to use an Internet access service to access, use, send, post, receive,
or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the
Internet."
The bill is a long shot, at best, considering most lawmakers' preference to
leave network neutrality to the FCC, which currently rests its entire authority
to enforce network neutrality on a legally shaky house of cards. Comcast has
already legally challenged the FCC's four network neutrality principles.
But Obama's and Genachowski's technology policy changes are already sweeping
through the FCC. Under a mandate from Congress, the agency is preparing a national
broadband plan that will most likely include a more legally defensible network
neutrality framework.
In any event—significant FCC changes or a bill by Congress—the nation's
broadband providers are not about to roll over, and they are fully prepared to
make a hammer-and-tong battle out of it. They have the money, the power and the
political stroke.
Neither AT&T nor Verizon had a comment regarding Markey and Eshoo's bill,
referring inquiries to Walter McCormick, president and CEO
of USTelecom, the trade group representing telecom interests in Washington.
"This is a disappointing but not unexpected development," McCormick
said of the network neutrality bill. "The nation's broadband service
providers are committed to an open and free Internet and support the FCC
principles that have safeguarded it for years. While we are still reviewing the
language, it is readily apparent that this legislation would not preserve
Internet freedom, but would instead lead to a government-managed Internet. It
will create broad uncertainty and destabilize the investment that is currently
creating jobs, spurring innovation and lowering prices for consumers."
With all sides now engaged, let the battle begin.
|
|
 |
| FEATURED SPONSORED MESSAGE |
|
| |
|
| FEATURED SPONSORED MESSAGE |
|
| |
|
|
|
|