This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/24/fcc-net-neutrality-tom-wheeler-stop-rules

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The FCC is about to axe-murder net neutrality. Don't get mad – get even The FCC is about to axe-murder net neutrality. Don't get mad – get even
(about 4 hours later)
In January, a federal appeals court rejected regulations designed to assure some measure of fairness in the way America's internetIn January, a federal appeals court rejected regulations designed to assure some measure of fairness in the way America's internet
service providers (ISPs) handle information traveling through their networks.service providers (ISPs) handle information traveling through their networks.
The problem, according to the court, was not so much that the FederalThe problem, according to the court, was not so much that the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) couldn't insist on what isCommunications Commission (FCC) couldn't insist on what is
called "network neutrality" – the idea that customers, rather thancalled "network neutrality" – the idea that customers, rather than
ISPs, should decide priorities for information they get online. No, the issueISPs, should decide priorities for information they get online. No, the issue
was that the FCC had tried to impose broadband rules under the wrong regulatorywas that the FCC had tried to impose broadband rules under the wrong regulatory
framework. And the court all but invited the FCC to fix its own mistake andframework. And the court all but invited the FCC to fix its own mistake and
rewrite its own updated rules.rewrite its own updated rules.
The FCC's new chairman, the former cable and wireless industry lobbyistThe FCC's new chairman, the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist
Tom Wheeler, said he would comply, rather than appeal. "Preserving theTom Wheeler, said he would comply, rather than appeal. "Preserving the
Internet as an open platform for innovation and expression while providingInternet as an open platform for innovation and expression while providing
certainty and predictability in the marketplace is an important responsibilitycertainty and predictability in the marketplace is an important responsibility
of this agency," he said in aof this agency," he said in a
February statement.February statement.
Now, based on a slew of frightening news reports last night and a "clarification" from the FCC late this morning, we know how the agency – or atNow, based on a slew of frightening news reports last night and a "clarification" from the FCC late this morning, we know how the agency – or at
least the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler – proposes toleast the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler – proposes to
respond: it won't exercise its supreme regulatory authority in the manner therespond: it won't exercise its supreme regulatory authority in the manner the
court suggested.court suggested.
No, not at all.No, not at all.
Rather, the FCC will say – loud and proud –Rather, the FCC will say – loud and proud –
that it is fixing the open-web problem while actually letting it get worse, bythat it is fixing the open-web problem while actually letting it get worse, by
providing a so-called "fast lane" for carriers to hike fees on sitesproviding a so-called "fast lane" for carriers to hike fees on sites
trying to reach customers like you and me. Which, inevitably, would mean you trying to reach customers like you and me. Which, inevitably, would mean you and I start paying more to use those sites if we aren't already.
and me start paying more to use those sites – if we aren't already.
This is a potentially tragic turning point in AmericanThis is a potentially tragic turning point in American
politics and policy. We are on the verge of turning over the internet – thepolitics and policy. We are on the verge of turning over the internet – the
most important communications system ever invented– to telecoms that grew hugemost important communications system ever invented– to telecoms that grew huge
through the government granting them monopoly status. Barring a genuine shift in policythrough the government granting them monopoly status. Barring a genuine shift in policy
or a court stepping in to ensure fair treatment of captive customers – oror a court stepping in to ensure fair treatment of captive customers – or
better yet, genuine competition – companies like Verizon and Comcast will havebetter yet, genuine competition – companies like Verizon and Comcast will have
staggering power to decide what bits of information reach your devices and mine,staggering power to decide what bits of information reach your devices and mine,
in what order and at what speed. That is, assuming we're permitted to get thatin what order and at what speed. That is, assuming we're permitted to get that
information at all.information at all.
Do we want an open internet? Do we want digitalDo we want an open internet? Do we want digital
innovation and free speech to thrive? If we continue down the regulatory roadinnovation and free speech to thrive? If we continue down the regulatory road
pursued by the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler, all ofpursued by the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler, all of
those good things will be in serious jeopardy.those good things will be in serious jeopardy.
Now, in the interest of fairness, it's important toNow, in the interest of fairness, it's important to
quote the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler's reactionquote the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler's reaction
to the news leaks, which obviously came from his office. After a brief statement last night, today comes a blogto the news leaks, which obviously came from his office. After a brief statement last night, today comes a blog
post called "Setting the Record Straight on the FCC’s Open Internet Rules", in which the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler says his new proposal "would establish that behavior harmful to consumers orpost called "Setting the Record Straight on the FCC’s Open Internet Rules", in which the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler says his new proposal "would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or
competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted."competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted."
The proposed rules, according to the blog post, wouldThe proposed rules, according to the blog post, would
require:require:
1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users
all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;
2. That no legal content may be blocked; and2. That no legal content may be blocked; and
3. That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.3. That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.
It's unclear why the FCC has the right even to enforceIt's unclear why the FCC has the right even to enforce
this under the current non-rules, but never mind that. More to the point isthis under the current non-rules, but never mind that. More to the point is
what the rules would allow: the oligopoly ISPs, by all reports, would have thewhat the rules would allow: the oligopoly ISPs, by all reports, would have the
right to cut special deals with web companies to give them that fast lane.right to cut special deals with web companies to give them that fast lane.
This is an outright perversion of network neutrality.This is an outright perversion of network neutrality.
We pay our ISPs for access to the internet, to get a certain speed – we'reWe pay our ISPs for access to the internet, to get a certain speed – we're
promised "up to" that speed, which is almost never delivered, becausepromised "up to" that speed, which is almost never delivered, because
the industry's sleazy but common sleight-of-hand marketing is permitted by thethe industry's sleazy but common sleight-of-hand marketing is permitted by the
FCC and other regulators.FCC and other regulators.
Consider: an ISP like, say, Time Warner Cable, tells,Consider: an ISP like, say, Time Warner Cable, tells,
say, Google that its YouTube videos won't reach us at the, say, "goldsay, Google that its YouTube videos won't reach us at the, say, "gold
package" speed we've already paid for ... unless Google, too, pays apackage" speed we've already paid for ... unless Google, too, pays a
gold-standard fee. That is nothing short of a protection racket, run by agold-standard fee. That is nothing short of a protection racket, run by a
company that has little or no competition. In an actually competitive market,company that has little or no competition. In an actually competitive market,
an ISP couldn't conceivably get away with such a thing.an ISP couldn't conceivably get away with such a thing.
Not everything about the proposed rules, as leaked, isNot everything about the proposed rules, as leaked, is
awful. Forcing ISPs to be much more transparent about the level of service theyawful. Forcing ISPs to be much more transparent about the level of service they
actually provide, for example, is highly useful. Getting them to complyactually provide, for example, is highly useful. Getting them to comply
honestly, given their record, is another story.honestly, given their record, is another story.
If you live in America and believe in an open internet, don't waste yourIf you live in America and believe in an open internet, don't waste your
time sinking into despair over politicians' betrayals. A little anger wouldn'ttime sinking into despair over politicians' betrayals. A little anger wouldn't
hurt, but aiming it at the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheelerhurt, but aiming it at the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler
is pointless. Focus your attention on the people who he works for, and whois pointless. Focus your attention on the people who he works for, and who
allegedly work for you. Start with President Obama, whose unequivocal vow as aallegedly work for you. Start with President Obama, whose unequivocal vow as a
candidate to support an open internet was ascandidate to support an open internet was as
empty as so many of his other promises, if not an outright lie.empty as so many of his other promises, if not an outright lie.
Don't stop with Obama, of course. He's made itDon't stop with Obama, of course. He's made it
absolutely clear which side he's on (hint: not ours). We all need to ask ourabsolutely clear which side he's on (hint: not ours). We all need to ask our
legislators – in your communities, in your states, in Washington – whether theylegislators – in your communities, in your states, in Washington – whether they
want to discourage innovation and free speech by giving control of thiswant to discourage innovation and free speech by giving control of this
essential public utility to a tiny oligopoly. Then:essential public utility to a tiny oligopoly. Then:
There are two ways to prevent abuses by the owners of public utilities.There are two ways to prevent abuses by the owners of public utilities.
One is to regulate them. Remember that advice from the appeals court? The FCCOne is to regulate them. Remember that advice from the appeals court? The FCC
could re-classify Internet access as a "telecommunications service"could re-classify Internet access as a "telecommunications service"
(as opposed to the current, largely unregulated "information(as opposed to the current, largely unregulated "information
service") and require neutral treatment by ISPs. For the moment, this mayservice") and require neutral treatment by ISPs. For the moment, this may
well be the best choice, but we need to be clear that doing this would not bewell be the best choice, but we need to be clear that doing this would not be
simple nor without unintended consequences.simple nor without unintended consequences.
Another, better fix is to create genuine competition, or at least theAnother, better fix is to create genuine competition, or at least the
conditions for it. The simplest path forward here would be to require theconditions for it. The simplest path forward here would be to require the
monopoly/oligopoly ISPs – remember, they got this big in the first palcemonopoly/oligopoly ISPs – remember, they got this big in the first palce
because they were once granted exclusive rights to "serve" theirbecause they were once granted exclusive rights to "serve" their
geographic communities – to share their lines, at a fair price, with competinggeographic communities – to share their lines, at a fair price, with competing
ISPs. This is what manyISPs. This is what many
other countries do, and we should give it a tryother countries do, and we should give it a try
here.here.
The best solution? Taxpayers should pay for a fiber-everywhere system, then let competing ISPs use it to compete in a genuine free market. But do notThe best solution? Taxpayers should pay for a fiber-everywhere system, then let competing ISPs use it to compete in a genuine free market. But do not
hold your breath on that one.hold your breath on that one.
The sky hasn't fallen with today's FCC announcements. Let's not panic.The sky hasn't fallen with today's FCC announcements. Let's not panic.
But if we don't start getting serious about this, as a public, we will lose theBut if we don't start getting serious about this, as a public, we will lose the
most important medium in human history. That would be worse than tragic.most important medium in human history. That would be worse than tragic.