Mixed Reaction to F.C.C. Internet Plan

Edward Wyatt | Washington | December 1

NYT - The plan from the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to ensure an open and neutral Internet drew mixed reviews on Wednesday from consumer advocates and Internet service providers, presenting the agency with an uncertain way forward as it considers new broadband regulation.

The proposal, by Julius Genachowski, would forbid both wired and wireless Internet service providers from blocking lawful content. It would also require broadband Internet service providers to give consumers basic information about how the companies manage their networks and would forbid discrimination in transmitting lawful content.

But it relies in part on a novel legal interpretation of how much authority the agency has over the Internet, one that some critics think is almost certain to invite Congressional opposition and court challenges. And it drew lukewarm support from one of the most important voices in the debate, Michael J. Copps, an F.C.C. commissioner, who has advocated stricter regulation and whose vote the chairman will need in order to get an order approved by a majority vote of the five-member commission.

“It’s no secret that I am looking for the strongest protections we can get to preserve an open Internet, built on the most secure legal foundation, so we don’t find ourselves in court every other month,” Mr. Copps said. Noting that this is only the beginning of discussion about the proposal, which is likely to change before it becomes final, Mr. Copps added: “At issue is who will control access to the online experiences of consumers — consumers themselves or Big Phone and Big Cable gatekeepers.”


Raja December 2, 2010 - 9:31am

'forbid...from blocking legal content'--if lifted directly from the article or from the original source, that statement is so vague, it makes me concerned, since that leaves loopholes over definition of 'legal' vs 'illegal' that you could steer the 'Freedom of the Seas' through...

In practice, Carriers *routinely* jink with traffic within and between themselves... Cost per MB/GB throughput is usually the biggest (maybe the only) consideration, imo. If traffic is encrypted, I don't see how one could easily (or cost-effectively) determine if traffic that infringes on copyright (or meets other clear definitions of 'illegal') is traversing their 'wire'.

So, if Usage/throughput is the best way to be cost-efficient as a Carrier, and the Government, responding to calls for an open internet, seek to remove Usage controls, so as to foster a full-speed (no controls save for hardware capabilities) environment, where will the money be made? Storage? I can't see that, what with storage costs dropping faster than Moore's Law would suggest.

I suspect the golden eggs lay in the 'choke points' linking 'Corporate Internets'...say, between Comcast and Level3. If the government tries to 'lock the spigot open at full', they'll find a lot of Carriers dropping out of the business, since the biggest part of their earning capability would be taken away---and a Government that espouses monopolistic practices isn't one I'd like to have overseeing my interests.....

"In theory, theory is the same as practice. In practice, it ain't." -- Yogi Berra

justadood December 2, 2010 - 1:29pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.