Category: Net Neutrality

EDUCAUSE has released 7 Things You Should Know About Net Neutrality.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Net neutrality is the principle that broadband Internet providers will handle all network traffic in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Internet was conceived as an "open" service that would operate under "common carrier" regulations, which requires providers to serve any customers who seek their services and to do so "indifferently." The principle was conceived to protect consumers from transportation providers that had a monopoly on transport facilities such as roads or canals and, later, wirelines. In 2005, common carrier requirements for broadband providers were lifted, opening the door to the possibility that providers could discriminate against certain users and certain content. Entities including higher education, public interest groups, and content companies are calling for federal authorities to guarantee net neutrality; many broadband providers oppose new regulations.

The FCC has released the text and a digital video of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's "Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity" speech at the Brookings Institution.

Here's an excerpt:

The rise of serious challenges to the free and open Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see the Internet’s doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised. Or we could take steps to preserve Internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation, and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.

I understand the Internet is a dynamic network and that technology continues to grow and evolve. I recognize that if we were to create unduly detailed rules that attempted to address every possible assault on openness, such rules would become outdated quickly. But the fact that the Internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can, or should, abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network, or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open Internet.

Saying nothing—and doing nothing—would impose its own form of unacceptable cost. It would deprive innovators and investors of confidence that the free and open Internet we depend upon today will still be here tomorrow. It would deny the benefits of predictable rules of the road to all players in the Internet ecosystem. And it would be a dangerous retreat from the core principle of openness—the freedom to innovate without permission—that has been a hallmark of the Internet since its inception, and has made it so stunningly successful as a platform for innovation, opportunity, and prosperity.

In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.

The FCC also launched a new website: Open Internet.Gov.

The Congressional Research Service has released Net Neutrality: The Federal Communications Commission's Authority to Enforce its Network Management Principles. (Thanks to ResourceShelf.)

Here's an excerpt:

In 2007, through various experiments by the media, most notably the Associated Press, it became clear that Comcast was intermittently blocking the use of an application called BitTorrent and, possibly, other peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing programs on its network. Comcast eventually admitted to the practice and agreed to cease blocking the use of the P2P applications on its network. However, Comcast maintains that its actions were reasonable network management and not in violation of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC" or "Commission") policy.

In response to a petition from Free Press for a declaratory ruling that Comcast's blocking of P2P applications was not "reasonable network management," the FCC conducted an investigation into Comcast's network management practices. The FCC determined that Comcast had violated the agency's Internet Policy Statement when it blocked certain applications on its network and that the practice at issue in this case was not "reasonable network management." The FCC declined to fine Comcast, because its Internet Policy Statement had never previously been the basis for enforcement forfeitures.

Comcast has appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, as have other public interest groups. Comcast argues that the FCC does not have the authority to enforce its Network Management Principles and the Commission's order was invalid for that reason. The Commission argues that it has ancillary authority under Title I of the Communications Act to implement the broad statutory goals for an open, user-controlled Internet laid out by Congress. If the court finds that the FCC does not have the authority to adjudicate based on its Internet Policy Statement, Congress may face the question whether to act to give the FCC such authority in order to prevent anticompetitive conduct by broadband access providers. If the court finds that the FCC acted properly, the agency may continue to enforce these broad principles on a case-by-case basis.

Opposing Views' "Should We Support Net Neutrality?" page offers contrasting views of net neutrality. The Open Internet Coalition, Public Knowledge, Save the Internet argue for it, while the CATO Institute and Hands Off the Internet argue against it.

On October 1, 2008, Comcast will implement a new 250 GB monthly Internet use limit for residential customers, and it will suspend Internet service for one year if customers exceed it twice.

Read more about it at: "Comcast Caps Highlight Lack of Broadband Competition," "Comcast to Cap Internet Usage for Customers," and "Comcast to Cap Monthly Consumer Broadband Starting Oct. 1."

The FCC has issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order about Comcast's inteference with P2P traffic.

Here's the "Introduction":

We consider whether Comcast, a provider of broadband Internet access over cable lines, may selectively target and interfere with connections of peer-to-peer (P2P) applications under the facts of this case. Although Comcast asserts that its conduct is necessary to ease network congestion, we conclude that the company's discriminatory and arbitrary practice unduly squelches the dynamic benefits of an open and accessible Internet and does not constitute reasonable network management. Moreover, Comcast's failure to disclose the company's practice to its customers has compounded the harm. Accordingly, we institute a plan that will bring Comcast's unreasonable conduct to an end. In particular, we require Comcast within 30 days to disclose the details of their unreasonable network management practices, submit a compliance plan describing how it intends to stop these unreasonable management practices by the end of the year, and disclose to both the Commission and the public the details of the network management practices that it intends to deploy following termination of its current practices.

In the "Discussion" section, the FCC notes that ISPs may "may block transmissions of illegal content":

50. Comcast and several other commenters maintain a continual refrain that "all network providers must manage bandwidth in some manner" and that providers need "flexibility to engage in the reasonable network management practices." We do not disagree, which is precisely why we do not adopt here an inflexible framework micromanaging providers' network management practices. We also note that because "consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice," providers, consistent with federal policy, may block transmissions of illegal content (e.g., child pornography) or transmissions that violate copyright law. To the extent, however, that providers choose to utilize practices that are not application or content neutral, the risk to the open nature of the Internet is particularly acute and the danger of network management practices being used to further anticompetitive ends is strong. As a result, it is incumbent on the Commission to be vigilant and subject such practices to a searching inquiry, and here Comcast's practice falls well short of being carefully tailored to further the interest offered by the company.

Read more about it at: "Analysis: FCC Comcast Order Is Open Invitation to Internet Filtering"; "FCC Finalizes Comcast's Filtering Penalties"; "FCC Order Scolds Comcast for Changing Story on P2P Blocking"; and "Public Knowledge Praises FCC's Order Protecting Internet, Condemning Comcast Discrimination."

Since it was announced, the FCC's proposal for a free national wireless broadband service has been controversial.

Free speech advocates don't like this provision of the proposal:

That filters or blocks images and text that constitute obscenity or pornography and, in context, as measured by contemporary community standards and existing law, any images or text that otherwise would be harmful to teens and adolescents. For purposes of this rule, teens and adolescents are children 5 through 17 years of age;

CTIA-The Wireless Association and individual wireless companies have voiced opposition to the plan as well, citing business and technical concerns.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) has introduced the Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act of 2008 (H.R. 5846) in the House, which is similar to the FCC proposal.

Read more about it at: "22 Public Interest Groups Roast FCC Smutless Broadband Plan"; "Congressional Dems Back Porn-Free Wireless Broadband Network"; "FCC Moves Ahead with Plan for Smut-Free Wireless Broadband"; "FCC Wants Free Broadband Service, Plus Content Filtering"; "FCC's Planned Free WiFi Is for Five Year Olds"; "GOP Pols Oppose Smut-Free Wireless Network Proposal"; and "Martin Defends Smut-Free, Wireless Network to Wary Congress."

Free Press has released Blocking or Metering: A False Choice.

Here's an excerpt:

The bottom line is this: Making consumers choose between having applications blocked and limitation pricing is what economists call a Morton’s Fork. Neither path is desirable because they both have the same outcome: reducing the innovative power of the Internet. Such an outcome would do great damage to the major driving force behind much of the social and economic change that has occurred over the past 20 years—not to mention all the benefits the Internet promises for the foreseeable future.

Canadian ISPs that rely on Bell Canada for data lines faced a new challenge starting on March 14th when Bell Canada began to implement a traffic shaping policy aimed at limiting P2P bandwidth utilization on their lines. The ISP's are up in arms about this policy, but Bell Canada says that:"Our agreements with wholesale ISP customers clearly include provisions regarding our rights to manage our networks appropriately to the benefit of all customers."

Read more about it at "Bell to Play Traffic Cop on Internet Bandwidth" and "Canadian ISPs Furious about Bell Canada's Traffic Throttling."