Tweet
So claims Larry Downes over at CNET:
The Obama administration and its allies at the Federal Communications Commission are retreating from a militant version of Net neutrality regulations first outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in September.
Genachowski had initially described his vision for the future role of the FCC as a "smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet." Communications companies understood that to mean aggressive and detailed enforcement of rules that would, among other things, prohibit ISPs from offering premium, or "fast lane," services.
Such services, which content providers could use to prioritize their interactions with customers over the parts of the Internet controlled by the ISPs, have yet to be offered. But the possibility that they would be ignited a firestorm in 2007 that has grown hotter since the election of President Obama, who proclaimed himself in favor of Net neutrality regulation during the 2008 campaign. Early in his administration, Obama appointed Genachowski, a longtime adviser, as the new head of the FCC.
Last fall, Genachowski proposed six Net neutrality rules and asked the full commission to approve them. The proposed rules could be adopted as early as spring.
But even as the commission concludes its collection of public comments next week, both the White House and the FCC appear to be dialing back their expectations.
Downes then goes on to detail why. The full post is worth a read, even if it is based on scant evidence.
This is a lot of tea-leaf reading, but it’s certainly plausible. Gunning for real net neutrality like what FCC chairman Genachowski announced in the fall would mean a real fight with the telecom companies and their stooges in Congress. And we know what happens when the White House is faced with a fight.
Of course, the FCC is currently taking public comments on net neutrality, and will until January 14th, so this could very well be part of a dialog, but one that leads to a strong rule.
Let’s hope it’s not true. Downes notes that the administration is set to roll out its national broadband plan which was mandated in the stimulus bill. Providing affordable broadband to the entire country is a great goal, and one that gets my full support. Doing it by allowing telecom companies to discriminate and charge more for content who’s providers can’t pay for more bandwidth (as in, it’ll be faster to read the Washington Post than this blog, because the post can pony up the dough for faster service and I can’t) would be a Pyrrhic victory at the least. And the idea that net neutrality stunts investment or innovation? Bogus, according to NYU scholars [pdf].
Either way, if you’ve got the fight for net neutrality, get involved. Looks like we might need it.
9 Comments
I think this is a fight worth having because so little political capital would be spent on it, even if the Telecom companies largely rejected what the FCC was doing.
Obama is picking his “fights” carefully. I think this is one he’s willing to have since he’s not fighting it directly and spending little to no capital on it.
We’ll see if they are willing to fight if they reject this merger between Comcast and NBC
I think you’re right in that it’s a big win with the public. But those telecoms are powerful, even though almost everyone hates their cable company and their phone company.
Thanks for this Jason.
Downes offers a series of loose assumptions and scant evidence to support his idea that the White House is backing away.
Whenever asked Obama has been firm in his support of Net Neutrality, famously saying that he “takes a backseat to no one” in his commitment to protecting an open Internet.
Downes’ idea that Net Neutrality is a “sideshow” when it comes to the “real priority” of using the Internet for economic recovery blithely ignores the role an *open* Internet plays to fuel innovation and growth in the country.
I gather Downes was too busy conjuring conclusions to have read yesterday’s report from several NYU legal scholars and economists who find that Net Neutrality fosters an essential “open and entrepreneurial dynamic” that “creates billions of dollars in value for American public.”
I’m glad you cited that report as it rightly argues that Net Neutrality and the Internet are inseperable. You strip the Internet of Neutrality and it loses all value.
http://policyintegrity.org/documents/Free_to_Invest.pdf
Downes’ idea that Net Neutrality thwarts investment in network improvements has been thoroughly debunked by real market data:
http://www.freepress.net/node/73722
Connecting more people to a non-Neutral (and therefore value-less) Internet is simply not a sound economic solution.
Tim
I’d agree on the tenor of the piece, but I gotta say, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the administration softball net neutrality because it means a fight with powerful corporations. I think this is a lot of tea-leaf reading, but something that should be watched closely.
OT but for anyone that wants to put American workers back to work here is a web site that has clothing made in the USA. Jeans, polo shirts, sweatshirts for both men and women. Put American back to work. Buy American. http://www.allamericanclothing.com/SFNT.html
Two Rhetorical Questions and One Naive Question:
1) Does anybody really believe that when Jay Rockefeller said that we would have been better off if the internet had never been invented, that he was really worried about a hacker in Latvia? BS. Critical systems are all air gapped. No hacker can launch a missile. The internet is frankly a world historical phenomenon which has made it harder and harder for elites to lie. They kid themselves that they are doing the spying, but I’m pretty sure that history will show them hoist on their on petard as the internet will record all of their crimes forever. The truth does slowly win out online because it is the only thing that coheres. You can lie about how many quarters you have in your pocket but not about anything very big. It is arguably the most democratic force the world has ever seen. The elites hate it because they rely on lies and hate democracy.
2) Does anybody doubt that Wall Street would charge for a breath of air if they could just find a way? Really investing in real innovation is so hard. Easier to just find ways of charging people more for what they already have. Isn’t this what they teach at Harvard Business School? Isn’t this what makes a management consultant with McKinsey think he’s just so fucking clever?
3) And the non-rhetorical question: What are the implications of this for the rest of the world? Is destruction of Net Neutrality just a way of further screwing Americans or will it have a significant impact on the internet in say Europe and South America?
The notion that what Obama says has any relevance to what he does should have been debunked long ago.
Good question re: #3. I don’t have an answer, though.
In an era of “too big to fail” and disasters caused by large corporations there are two very large corporations who somehow think NOW is the time to join together. Truly bizarre.
We are seeking competition, not monopoly. What kind of rationalization could they have for merging that would make ANY sense whatsoever?
One is a cable, the other is content for the cable. Got it.
Do movie-makers own theaters or even the distribution networks?
Do food producers own grocery stores?
Do oil producers own tankers and refineries and pipelines for delivery?
There are some cases where there’s a vertical integration which goes way back in time. then, there has also been the breakup of Ma Bell to introduce tremendous competition.
Probably the biggest argument against NBC getting this deal is that they already face great competition (sort of), but that if they have a huge cable co. which DOESN’T have tremendous competition at the local level, then they would be (or could be) creating an imbalance which only favors them and not ABC, CBS and other networks. Would Comcast give those companies equal treatment on their cables? Not likely.
Common carriers (or close to that) need to retain their neutrality towards content providers, including bloggers, corporations, gov agencies and all others. If we have content creators/distributors dominating the toobz then where will the rest of us go for a fair deal?
In this case I see no reason to allow such a merger. It doesn’t benefit the public and it may do irreparable harm.