Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 2:16 PM ET, 12/21/2010

FCC votes for a half-measure on net neutrality

By Rob Pegoraro

This month's least-surprising tech-policy development played out in a protracted hearing at the Federal Communications Commission this morning. In a 3 to 2 vote, the FCC decided to write a weakened set of network-neutrality rules.

The proposal on the table was essentially the same as the limited set of net-neutrality regulations that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski floated Dec. 1 -- and doesn't differ that much in its outlines from a joint Google-Verizon proposal that was widely denounced (including in my column) this summer.

Under the new scheme, the FCC will write regulations banning all Internet providers from blocking any legal Internet sites or services. (The Motion Picture Association of America noted with pleasure that this framework allows providers to "take reasonable measures to address copyright infringement.") The commission will also require them to document how they manage their networks, so customers, in theory, will know what kind of connection they're getting.

The FCC's rules would prohibit wire-line broadband Internet providers -- including cable modem services such as Comcast as well as fiber-optic and digital-subscriber-line connections such as those sold by Verizon -- from "unreasonable discrimination" against particular sites but would allow them to charge sites more for faster delivery. It would impose considerably looser rules on wireless broadband providers. AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless and their ilk could slow access to some sites and charge more for access to others as long as they didn't interfere with competing voice and video services, such as Skype or Apple's FaceTime.

(Note that wired and wireless providers alike generally testify that they have no plans to discriminate against anybody online; they merely want the legal flexibility to continue not doing such a thing.)

I still don't like this proposal's discriminatory regulatory treatment. People buy wireless broadband not just as a supplement to land-based services but sometimes as their only Internet connection. The FCC's own National Broadband Plan relies heavily on building out wireless coverage. So why cover two competing markets with different rules?

The other problem with the FCC's new framework is its shaky legal foundation. After giving up on a simpler but politically more challenging proposal to reclassify broadband services under the same chapter of federal telecommunications law that covers traditional voice calling services, Genaschowki opted to build this new structure on a different area of telecom law that suffered a court defeat in April -- setting off this entire round of net-neutrality discussions.

And yet despite this attempt to find a bipartisan solution, the FCC split on the same party lines that you would have seen with a vote for the earlier, so-called Title II solution. Its two Republican appointees, Meredith Attwell Baker and Robert M. McDowell, voted against today's proposal, and Democratic appointees Michael J. Copps and Mignon Clyburn joined Genachoswki in voting for it -- while sounding distinctly unenthused in their own remarks.

It matters that the FCC has voted to write specific rules prohibiting the very worst sort of net-neutrality violations. But between the inevitable court challenges and a long period of rule writing that lies ahead, we're a long way from any sort of certainty about what you will and won't get with your Internet connection, and what the feds can do about it if your provider's Internet access seems less than open.

What's your read on this new deal from the FCC? Have we accomplished anything after all this back-and-forth, or has the commission merely sentenced tech reporters to another year of covering this debate?

By Rob Pegoraro  | December 21, 2010; 2:16 PM ET
Categories:  Policy and politics, Telecom  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Apple iPad sales, Facebook privacy + more in our year-end tech quiz
Next: Palm announces tablet, hoping to give iPad some competition

Comments

My read is that it's strange to see a news analysis piece that has neither news nor analysis. Which of these bazillion links takes me back to the $#$@% news story?

Posted by: getjiggly2 | December 21, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

I don't get it. The heaviest use is not through wireless. It's through "the wire" with gaming, BitTorrent, etc. You would think THAT is the usage they would want to charge more for.

Posted by: poncedeleroy | December 22, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Rob. As usual, your commentary has provided the best analysis of a complex issue.

On a separate front -- it's hilarious that wireline monopolies cite rising wireless competition to justify wireline deregulation when they hold the dominant position in both sectors. AT&T, after all, owns AT&T Wireless, and Verizon jointly owns Verizon Wireless with Vodafone.

Makes me wonder if we'll hear a new take on the plea for further wireline deregulation now that wireless providers enjoy lighter net neutrality rules than their parent companies. Poor Baby Bells -- under siege. . .from themselves. Thank God that Republican lawmakers are already at work to right this latest FCC injustice.

Posted by: jcrawford1 | December 22, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Rob. As usual, your commentary has provided the best analysis of a complex issue.

On a separate front -- it's hilarious that wireline monopolies cite rising wireless competition to justify wireline deregulation when they hold the dominant position in both sectors. AT&T, after all, owns AT&T Wireless, and Verizon jointly owns Verizon Wireless with Vodafone.

Makes me wonder if we'll hear a new take on the plea for further wireline deregulation now that wireless providers enjoy lighter net neutrality rules than their parent companies. Poor Baby Bells -- under siege. . .from themselves. Thank God that Republican lawmakers are already at work to right this latest FCC injustice.

Posted by: jcrawford1 | December 22, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Rob, I can only assume that you are playing the Devil's advocate here, since you certainly know that wireless carriers have limited spectrum available to them.

They can't just lay another fiber pipe to get more capacity, so if they are forbidden from managing bandwidth on their own networks they will be pilloried by their customers for the egregious crime of not permitting their Foursquare updates to get through. OH! The Humanity!

Posted by: BoteMan | December 22, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Rob. As usual, your commentary has provided the best analysis of a complex issue.Mobile Phone Deals

Posted by: frenkstayl | December 23, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company