Why the White House is backing away from Network Neutrality?
Submitted: January 8, 2010 - 11:44am
Originally published: January 8, 2010
Last updated: January 8, 2010 - 11:45am
Originally published: January 8, 2010
Last updated: January 8, 2010 - 11:45am
Source:
C-Net|News.com
Author:
Larry Downes
[Commentary] The Obama Administration and its allies at the Federal Communications Commission are retreating from a militant version of Network Neutrality regulations first outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in September.
Chairman 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.
Downes cites an American Spectator article (see link below) saying that Obama advisor Susan Crawford left the White House in a row over how radical proposed Network Neutrality rules would be. At the Consumer Electronics Show, Crawford and White House deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin reminded the audience that the FCC had yet to determine whether net neutrality is needed to preserve the open Internet and characterized the proposing of the rules as simply opening a dialogue on the subject to allow the FCC to collect data.
Downes writes that the major carriers are making the investments, and have every business reason to make more. But the Net neutrality rules, depending on how the FCC defines key terms, could hamstring their efforts to make their money back. Net neutrality is making Wall Street uncomfortable about financing broadband deployment. That in turn is making the White House nervous. Net neutrality is turning out to be a noisy side show and a growing distraction from the real priority for both the White House and the FCC: getting the country wired for recovery.
[Larry Downes is a consultant and author, most recently of "The Laws of Disruption: Harnessing the New Forces that Govern Life and Business in the Digital Age." He is a nonresident fellow at the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society.]
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Ratings
Recommendation:
Informative:
Accuracy:
Login to rate this headline.
Comments
Shouldn't this say,"If we subsidize their efforts to the tune of $23 billion, operators will provide broadband service with non-discrimination requirements."? How is that evidence that nondiscrimination regulation would or would not discourage investment?
Downes mentions a recent filing by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration on the National Broadband Plan. That filing includes this:
"[The FCC] should examine the terms under which firms offer broadband Internet access, including policies concerning and affecting the flow of traffic over
their networks. For that reason, the Administration fully supports the Commission’s initiating a
rulemaking to reexamine the 2005 Broadband Policy Statement. NTIA expects to offer views
on the issues presented in that rulemaking at the appropriate time. Those positions will be
informed, in part, by NTIA’s experience to date with our Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program (BTOP) and the Rural Utilities Service’s (RUS) Broadband Initiatives Program, which
award grants for infrastructure deployment and other purposes. At Congress’ direction, NTIA
and RUS require all infrastructure applicants to adhere to nondiscrimination requirements akin to
those outlined in the Commission’s Policy Statement. For the first round of grants, NTIA and
RUS have received nearly 1,500 infrastructure applications requesting more than $23 billion in funds. These applications suggest that there are a significant number of commercial and noncommercial network operators that are prepared to provide Internet access service under nondiscrimination rules.
That appears to be -- again -- strong support for Network Neutrality.