The FCC has voted to start the formal process of establishing new “Net Neutrality” rules. More accurately, the FCC has begun the process of killing the concept of net neutrality in favor of a system that lets broadband providers make money from both sides and charge companies for faster, priority delivery of Internet content.
Tom Wheeler, the FCC Chairman and former telecom lobbyist, pushed
forward with a vote to begin the formal consideration process in spite
of a backlash against his proposal. The rules are not yet in
place—today’s vote simply begins a four-month period for public comment
providing an opportunity for supporters and opponents to weigh in before
the FCC moves forward to actually implement the new rules.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler pushes ahead with contentious "net neutrality" plan. Wheeler has rejected criticism of his plan. He claims that the proposal to allow companies to pay broadband providers for priority access is somehow being misconstrued.
In a recent blog post defending his plan, Wheeler stressed expedience. It seems that even Wheeler recognizes that his proposal is far short of the
net neutrality ideal, but he feels that it is something the FCC can do
now that fits within the guidance handed down by the court when it sided
with Verizon and essentially struck down the previous FCC net
neutrality framework. The message of his post seems to be, “This isn’t
the plan we want, but it’s the plan we can get approved.”
There is strong opposition to this approach, though—expedient or not.
“This is an alarming day for anyone who treasures a free and open
Internet—which should be all of us,” said Michael Copps, special advisor
to Common Cause's Media and Democracy Reform Initiative, in an email.
“Let's be clear. Any proposal to allow fast lanes for the few is
emphatically not net neutrality," Copps added. "The clear common-sense
prerequisite for an Open Internet is Title II reclassification,
guaranteeing the agency's authority to protect consumers and ensure free
speech online.”
Customers pay broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T for a specified level of Internet access—usually
defined by both the speed at which data is transferred and possibly a
maximum cap on the amount of data the customer has access to each month.
Which sites or services the customer uses, or how that broadband
bandwidth is consumed, should not have any bearing on the service. The
broadband company is simply providing a pipe to get the data to the
customer.
Companies like Comcast and Verizon want to charge services like Netflix an additional toll, though. Netflix is a popular video streaming service,
and customers consuming video content from Netflix place a significant
burden on the broadband network. That, however, is a problem for the
broadband providers to deal with, not Netflix. The broadband customer is
already paying for the pipe to get the content, the broadband provider
should not also be able to extort money from the sites or services the customers want access to.
Wheeler’s assertion that this is not as horrible as we think is based
in large part on his belief that as long as he ensures a baseline of
“commercially reasonable” access for the masses, that somehow those
companies paying for faster priority access don’t represent a divided
Internet.
The reality is, it doesn’t matter if some data is transferred at one
rate while other data is throttled or limited, or if most data is
transferred at the same “commercially reasonable” rate while other data
is transferred faster for companies that pay for it. Both ways, there is
a slow lane, and a fast lane, and a divided Internet based on the
wealth and privilege of those who can afford to pay the broadband
providers.
The clock is ticking. You have four months to express your opinion
and concerns to the FCC before a final vote occurs to decide how to move
forward. To weigh in, send an email
0 comments:
Post a Comment