Network neutrality advocates reacted with great disappointment to the news that the Federal Communications Commission would approve an Open Internet order on December 21.
Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, said, "The actions by the Federal Communications Commission fall far short of what they could have been. Instead of a rule that would protect everyone, from consumers to applications developers from predatory practices of telephone and cable companies, the Commission settled for much less. Instead of strong, firm rules providing clear protections, the Commission created a vague and shifting landscape open to interpretation. Consumers deserved better. The FCC should have fought for consumers, not put the burden on them to fight for their rights. Chairman Julius Genachowski was right when he said last year that there is one Internet, and it doesn't matter whether someone connects via a cord or through the air. His actions fell far short of his rhetoric. Under the rules the Chairman will bring to a vote tomorrow, those who go online with a wireless device will be at the mercy of the big telephone companies to practice whatever mischief they wish to get around the bare-bone approach the Commission took. Cell phones and smart phones are the fastest growing, and a major Internet onramp for poor Americans and people of color. We hope the Commission returns, as promised, to the wireless issue sooner rather than later, and will see the merit in offering equal protections for all users. The Commission protections for wired access to the Internet are stronger, but still suspect. While we believe the order has been somewhat strengthened from the Chairman’s original proposal, significant loopholes remain. That the FCC has left the door open for paid prioritization is distressing, and is contrary to everything that Chairman Genachowski has said about an open Internet. The notion that a deep-pocketed company, through paid prioritization, could pay to have its service moved ahead in the queue or transmitted faster than another is deeply troubling in a medium founded on the idea that everyone has a chance to reach someone else without interference from the carrier in the middle. There are other shortcomings in the FCC’s attempt to frame exactly with what service it is attempting to deal. In-the-weeds definitions of terms like “broadband Internet access” could lead to loopholes larger than the protections, and could nullify what the Commission said it wants to do. We thank Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn for their dedicated and diligent efforts to protect consumers and to keep the Internet open through their work on this order. We look forward to working with the FCC, our public-interest colleagues, and others in correcting the flaws in this order to make it provide the strong protections that everyone deserves."
Free Press Managing Director Craig Aaron said, “We are deeply disappointed that this Commission appears to be moving forward with deeply flawed rules that don't live up to the promises of the president or the FCC chairman to protect the free and open Internet. These rules appear to be flush with giant loopholes, and the FCC chairman seems far more concerned with winning the endorsement of AT&T and the cable lobbyists than with listening to the millions of Americans who have pleaded with him to fix his proposal. This short-sighted decision is all too familiar to those who have watched the Obama administration and its appointees squander the opportunity for real change in favor of industry-written compromises that reward the biggest players from Wall Street to health care and now the Internet. There is overwhelming public support for real Net Neutrality, and this setback won't stop those fighting to save the Internet."
Parul Desai, policy council for Consumers Union, praised the FCC for taking action, but said her group would continue to push for stricter controls. "From what we know, we would prefer that the commission provide stronger protections for wireless Internet users in addition to wireline users, as more Americans use smartphones and other wireless devices to surf the web," Desai said. "If these rules are actually going to protect consumers, the commission must be vigilant in monitoring Internet service providers to make sure they don't try to circumvent the rules and take unfair advantage of the FCC's definition of what constitutes broadband service," she added.
Mark Cooper, Director of Research at the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), said, “The network neutrality order could be an important milestone in ensuring that the Internet remains an open, consumer and citizen friendly place for communications and commerce. There are areas where stronger consumer protections are needed. CFA views the order as the platform on which those consumer protection can be built and we will work to ensure that consumers get those protections in the arenas where Internet policy is set. First, at the FCC, the order must be implemented and enforced in a way that guarantees the broadband Internet service available to the pubic achieves the primary goal of the Communications Act, which is to ensure that all Americans have access to ‘a rapid, efficient nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.’ Second in Congress, we will support efforts to strengthen the consumer protections and oppose efforts to weaken them."
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Senior Vice President and Policy Director of Media Access Project (MAP), said, "MAP respects and admires the work of Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn on this important issue, but MAP cannot support the watered-down, loophole-ridden option that the FCC appears to have chosen. The First Amendment values on which MAP was founded compel it to expect nothing less than a truly and fully open Internet, and the FCC’s vote will not preserve that. The inadequate protections for wireless technologies are especially troublesome, as wireless services provide an onramp to the Internet for many of the nation’s poor and minority citizens."
