FCC’s Net Neutrality Stance Draws Praise, Criticism

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski endorsed net neutrality at a speech at the Brookings Institution on Monday, September 21st.  The FCC’s proposal would prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking certain technologies or content on the web as well as require ISPs to reveal plans to manage their networks when they get crowded.  The decision has drawn both praise and criticism, and has far-reaching effects.

Net neutrality, in its simplest form, is keeping the internet open to all users, applications, and content.  The web was designed with openness in mind, and it has remained a central tenant of internet developers and users.  The argument for net neutrality makes sense on an ideological level.  ISPs, such as Comcast or Verizon, are large monopolies that provide a service most Americans consider critical.  Rules that prohibit these companies from slowing or stopping applications or content they do not like are crucial to protecting access to, and maintaining the function of, the internet as we know it.  Comcast’s alleged slowing of BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer website, and its subsequent denial of the slow-down, is exactly what the new rules are supposed to prevent.  Net neutrality advocacy organization Public Knowledge released a statement lauding the announcement, saying, “Returning the Internet to its open, non-discriminatory character under the law opens up once again the greatest engine for economic growth, democracy and expression that we have ever seen.”

However, there are many people and organizations that oppose net neutrality.  First, the rules apply to all internet platforms, including wireless networks.  Wireless companies such as AT&T argue that this extension is unnecessary, as intense competition in the industry ensures that networks remain free and open; if they were not users would switch plans.  Second, taking away internet service providers’ ability to manage and adjust their networks could have deleterious effects on service.  ISPs traditionally manage their network by prioritizing video calls over photo uploads, or mitigating high bandwidth uses of their network, like hulu.com, to ensure the network does not crash.  Without this flexibility service could suffer.  In addition, it is likely that ISPs would eventually change how they provide the internet by charging people for large bandwidth use.  Genochowski states that the new regulations will not prevent ISPs from “reasonably managing” their networks.  However, the debate lies in what “reasonably” actually means.

Net neutrality has both positive and negative components and consequences.  Genchowski’s announcement was not the last word on the matter, but rather the beginning of a regulatory process, in which different opinions will be heard and considered.  However, it is likely that new neutrality in some form will pass, as other FCC Commissioners have come out on favor of the proposal.  President Obama has also voiced his support for the FCC’s proposed rule changes.

References
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/net-neutrality-announcement/
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/fcc-neutrality-mistake/
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2648
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2649
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092103661.html
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353195,00.asp

Faith Fried

Intern, CSIS Technology and Public Policy