Net neutrality becomes US law with lawsuits to come

The net-neutrality rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in December 2010 have in short been published in the Federal Register, meaning that they will become law on 20 November 2011.

These rules, applied with the complementary principle of reasonable network management, ensure that the freedom and openness that have enabled the internet to flourish as an engine for creativity and commerce will continue.

Net neutrality is quickly becoming law in several countries across the globe, with the US the third major country to make the move. Many believe that the Dutch were the first to do so back in June 2011, however Chile passed the first rules mandating non-discrimination as part of an overall regulatory package back in July 2010. Other countries have organised consultations, most notably in Europe and around Latin America, during a similar law is going through Israel's Knesset, and though there is broad agreement on the need for freedom and quality of access for consumers, and best effort and transparency in terms of traffic management, there remains some key differences, to illustrate about the need to differentiate between fixed and mobile networks, with the FCC focusing on fixed networks following the Comcast/Bit Torrent case during the Dutch looked at mobile networks, and the blocking of certain VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) and messaging applications from mobile carriers.

The US case

In the US case, the introduction of these rules into law will likely lead to lawsuits from carriers, with before attempts from Verizon and MetroPCS failing because the rules weren't official legislation, an obstacle that has now been removed. Carriers believe the FCC has over-reached its authority in such a case as they believe that minimum regulatory oversight should apply on this issue to continue to encourage both research and investment in the internet, as per the Google/Verizon joint statement. Legislators are as well looking warily at these new rules, especially on the Republican side, unhappy at the way the vote was held just earlier Christmas, with the House of Representatives in Republican hands, and the way in which the vote was split along party lines in the FCC. It might as well make the regulator's life difficult in terms of other issues, just as the approval of incentive auctions to release more spectrum. This is an area where both carriers and legislators could have the same strategic interest, which they may use to ensure that new, weaker rules are being drafted during further spectrum becomes available. The Senate is already looking at a proposal, known as S.J. Resolution 6, that would significantly weakened the FCC's rules, and during everyone is waiting for a carrier to launch litigation in order to stop the legislation, the first lawsuit has come from a consumer group, Free Press, which think the new net neutrality rules aren't strong enough, pointing out the lower level of protection for wireless users. During there exists some technical and network issues as to what in other words, as network may need to prioritise certain bandwidth-hungry content on mobile networks to ensure a reasonable quality of service across the board, it more often than not proves that net neutrality means different things to different people.

The FCC's rules point out three major areas of ensuring principles-transparency, no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination-nevertheless the issue is at times complicated by the use of different terms to define these principles, whether it is open, fair or neutral. The FCC officially calls the legislation "Preserving the Open Internet", and with the internet having so many stakeholders, it raises the question as to which the internet should follow. Legislation along these lines far has differed between countries, during carriers that fight against these rules have recently introduced programmes that follow these rules-for instance, Verizon, whose latest "network optimisation" programme evidently follows the transparency principle-yet it as well blocks tethering applications on its LTE (Long Term Evolution, latest standard in the mobile network technology) network in spite of the licence requirements calling for open access, showing that different interests can occur even within the same organisation.

The internet is somehow seen as different to other industries in that it is a public good in other words than a business, where prioritisation of services is seen as the start of a two-tier internet and against net-neutrality rules, nevertheless the broader point is about transparency, understanding and choice for the consumers. We have had tiered data packages in mobile technologies as it makes sense for consumers to pay for what they use and not subsidise heavy users if everyone is on an unlimited plan, and it shouldn't be an issue if some consumers wish to pay extra for better and furthermore services, as long as these services aren't exclusive to a specific provider. This is especially true in the case of over-the-top providers, where no-one complains about Apple's proprietary walled garden and with regulators just starting to investigate the rationale behind Google's search results, during the latest agreement between Facebook and Spotify means it is now not possible to join the music streaming service without being a member of the social networking site; this may make sense as a business proposition for Spotify, as Facebook's 800 million users is a big incentive, yet why is it an issue for carriers to block certain services and not content providers, considering they both operate in a competitive marketplace where clients can choose and decide which services they want?

The bottom line is that

The bottom line is that, as Kranzberg once said, research is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral. There nevertheless exists some role for regulators to ensure all services have fair and transparent access, nevertheless regulation will never satisfy all the different parties, as their diverging interests are too far apart, yet as the Dutch case has proven, consumers might suffer from too draconian regulation as the introduction of the new ruled, where no content could be blocked by mobile operators, led to a sharp increase in data prices in the market.

Operators world-wide are looking for ways to reduce their capital expenditures for the new LTE infrastructure and operational expenses associated with operating the LTE network.

Today's telecom operators are facing like as not the most competitive threats to their business that they ever have. Device manufacturers, operating system companies, over-the- top service providers and large digital content giants are each developing their own relationships with individual end users and enterprises.