1. Monthly archive
  2. January 2010

January 2010

NCTA To FCC: No New Internet Rules

The Federal Communications Commission should approach the Internet with "vigilant restraint" rather than new regulations, says the National Cable & Telecommunications Association in comments on the FCC's proposed codification and expansion of the four openness principles in its Internet policy statement. That means not codifying and not expanding those principles, which NCTA said would be "unwarranted and counterproductive."

Replacing such historic restraint with regulation would discourage investment and innovation by Internet service providers and content and applications developers, the group argued. And if there are rules, NCTA said, they must be narrowly tailored, "prophylactic," and apply to all competing access providers--that would include wireless--and to other "gateways," which NCTA says would include content and applications providers and search engines like Google. NCTA says the wireless industry is already restricting access to content and applications via such "walled gardens" as the iPhone. The use of the term "gateways" is carefully chosen, since FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has said that networks were the "gatekeepers" in need of monitoring, while NCTA suggests there are more gates and keepers to mind if the FCC wants to get into that business. NCTA argues the commission's effort to "fundamentally alter the regulatory environment" for what NCTA says is already an open Internet is an odd approach.

Why the Kankakee County Farm Bureau hates net neutrality

The Kankakee County Farm Bureau wants to stop net neutrality. So does the Erie Neighborhood House, along with Downtown Springfield Inc, Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Will and Grundy Counties, and the mayor of North Chicago. The organizations all share several things: they are located in Illinois, they want the FCC to focus on broadband adoption rather than net neutrality, and... they all have connections to AT&T.

It's not necessarily a question of buying opinions, either. AT&T reps sit on the local Chamber of Commerce, they sponsor local service agencies. That money does good things in many towns. When the AT&T reps describe the "danger" they are under from regulators run amok in Washington, it all sounds reasonable—and it's coming from someone in your community. When groups are then told they can weigh in at the FCC on some issue, and given dates and docket numbers, many of them do so and make remarkably similar arguments.

Why the Right Is Wrong About Net Neutrality

[Commentary] Maybe you've heard that Network Neutrality is "Internet socialism," "the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet," or simply the cornerstone of the Obama administration's frightening "vision of government ownership and control" over all communications and aspects of our lives.

Or so you might think if you've caught any of the right-wing's sudden interest in telecommunications policy. The uptick in attention from the tea partiers and the talk radio echo chamber -- which first popped up last fall when the FCC took up the issue, and is peaking again around this week's deadline for public comment on new rules -- is a little suspicious. Some of the newfound opponents are reflexively opposed to anything supported by President Obama -- who has pledged "to take a backseat to no one" on the issue. Others have knee-jerk response to any talk about "government regulation."

But the timing of the attacks on the FCC and the similarity of the talking points suggest more sophisticated coordination with Net Neutrality's corporate opponents.

CTIA: Internet Rules Shouldn't Apply to Wireless

The Federal Communications Commission shouldn't apply rules for an open Internet to wireless services, CTIA-The Wireless Association told the FCC. The wireless marketplace "is working for consumers and regulation is not needed," CTIA CEO Steve Largent said.

A separate trade group in Washington representing companies including Google, EBay and Microsoft, is supporting the proposed regulations. Forbidding discrimination against content is "necessary and appropriate," the Computer & Communications Industry Association said in comments filed to the FCC yesterday. Verizon Communications and AT&T have said new restrictions aren't necessary and may hinder their ability to manage congestion on networks. Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen in a corporate blog posting on Jan. 11 said his company questioned whether the record being assembled by the FCC will show a need for new rules.

Google Says It Favors 'Reasonable' Network Management

Google told the Federal Communications Commission it supports banning the prioritization of Internet traffic based on ownership, source or content, and that network providers should be allowed to address "genuine congestion issues."

"Providing a carefully-defined 'reasonable network management' exception" would allow broadband providers to deal with traffic congestion and protect against spamming and other Internet hazards, Richard Whitt, Mountain View, California- based Google's Washington telecommunications and media counsel, wrote in a post on the company's Web log. "Broadband providers uniquely have the incentive and ability to abuse their physical gateway control over end- users," Google said.

Skype to FCC: Keep the Internet Open & Neutral

Skype, a big proponent of open networks and network neutrality, in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission argued that net neutrality was "about growing the broadband ecosystem and preserving a borderless, open Internet" and said it would "promote investment, jobs and innovation." The company said that it "welcomes the Commission's focus on preserving an open Internet and strongly supports the proposed six principles described in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." Earlier, the FCC had come up with a framework pertaining to broadband and wireless networks and issues of network neutrality. The FCC has been seeking responses on sensitive and divisive issues such as reasonable network management. Skype's stance makes sense given that the company needs net neutrality to keep going and growing.

The true economic value of the Internet? Lots of people

Christiaan Hogendorn of Wesleyan University tells the Federal Communications Commission that Network Neutrality makes good economic sense.

Hogendorn's paper argues, in essence, that the "the full value to society of an open Internet" is more or less equivalent to the degree of social participation that it draws. And that value "is likely to be considerably higher than the value that an ISP would consider when setting prices and policies that would degrade the quality of some sources of content relative to others," e.g., the kind of prioritized access rules that the FCC's proposed net neutrality regulations would bar.

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St, SW
Washington, DC 20554
9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295743A1.doc

The forum will examine:

  • The interaction of the FCC's media ownership rules and minority/female ownership, including the potential impact of any rule changes on such ownership;
  • Marketplace or other factors that encourage diverse entrants;
  • The constitutionality of targeted race-based measures for promoting diverse ownership; and
  • The impact of subsequent judicial decisions on the Adarand standard.

The forum will consist of two panels. The first panel will be comprised of representatives from the academic community. The second panel will consist of broadcasters and representatives from media advocacy groups. Public participation in the workshop is encouraged.


America COMPETES: Big Picture Perspectives on the Need for Innovation,
Investments in R&D and a Commitment to STEM Education

House Committee on Science and Technology
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
January 20, 2010
10am-12pm
http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?news...


[view:video_single==31923]

New America Foundation/Slate
1899 L St NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
9:30 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2010/authority_meet_technology

Western media companies have long been faced with ethical challenges in order to access the vast Chinese market. But after accepting Beijing's censorship and a series of attacks on its network, Google announced last week that it has had enough, and it is threatening to pull out of China.
China aspires to be considered a trustworthy global economic leader, but plenty of companies doing business in that country share Google's frustration at having to abide by different rules in the Middle Kingdom.

How will the China Internet skirmish shake out? What lessons or cautionary tales does China's experience offer repressive governments and their tech-savvy opponents in places like Iran and Cuba? What, if anything, should the Obama administration do to keep the Web free, worldwide? On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to outline the administration's plans in a major address on Internet freedom.

Featured Speakers:

Evgeny Mozorov
Contributing Editor, Foreign Policy Magazine
Yahoo! Fellow, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University

Rebecca MacKinnon
Fellow, Open Society Institute
Co-Founder, Global Voices Online

Tim Wu
Schwartz Fellow, New America Foundation
Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Contributing Writer, Slate

Alec Ross
Senior Advisor for Innovation
Office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Moderator
James Fallows
Board Member, New America Foundation
National Correspondent, The Atlantic Monthly


© 1994-2024 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.