FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules Despite Overall Dissatisfaction

As expected, the Federal Communications Commission adopted the net neutrality regulations in a 3-2 vote at its meeting on Dec. 21. But, it's clear that even amongst the majority, the commissioners were not satisfied with the rules.

The order, scheduled to go into effect early then year, gives the federal government formal authority, through the FCC, to regulate Internet traffic, though it is in no way whatsoever a "final decision," Mike Manzo, chief marketing officer of wireless supplier OpenNet told eWEEK. There is substantial opposition, and either Congress or the courts may overrule the regulations, he said. As a matter of fact, hours earlier the vote, there were reports that Verizon will consider a lawsuit protesting the orders.

The order addressed three major issues

The order addressed three major issues: transparency, blocking, and discrimination. Fixed-line broadband providers like Comcast and Qwest will be required to give subscribers information on Internet speeds and service. They are as well prohibited from blocking access to sites and applications that may compete against its own products. But, there is clause allowing "reasonable" network management to enable providers to restrict access to sites that may be "harmful."

The rules "do not guarantee anyone's right to an open Internet or ban paid prioritization" by ISPs, said the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a group that supported the much stronger net neutrality proposal from previously this year. Although there was no outright ban, the order contained language discouraging phone and cable companies from offering faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to pay extra.

The exclusion for wireless providers

The exclusion for wireless providers, first announced in a draft proposal before this month, remained in the final version of the order. The exclusion will create "barriers to new start-up content providers and chill content technology over wireless Internet," said J. Scott Holladay, an economics fellow at the Institute of Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn as well voted yes in spite of being unhappy about the different set of rules for wireless providers. All the rules should have been extended to the wireless industry, given that there are those who rely solely on mobile devices for access to the Internet, she said.

The other dissenting Republican commissioner

The other dissenting Republican commissioner, Meredith Attwell Baker, said there was no need for these rules. She said there was already a competitive broadband marketplace that made government regulation of any kind unnecessary. McDowell as well touted the healthy competition between broadband providers.

An informal poll online indicated most users have access to only one broadband provider in their area. Only a few could choose between two providers. One user asked on a chat hosted by the Media Access Project, "Where is this competitive broadband marketplace? Can I move there?"

McDowell and Baker both pointed out in their statements that the FCC does not have any legal powers to regulate the Internet. "The FCC is not Congress; we cannot make laws," McDowell said.

The Internet

Copps as well wanted to assert Title II-level authority over the Internet, giving the FCC moreover authority to regulate the big gatekeepers just as Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon. He noted that Title II classification remained an open item in accordance with the final orders.

A Desktop GPS for Better Compliance and Efficiency Evolving Standards for Security and Compliance Empowering Decision Making in the Rank and File Cutting Complexity and Improving Business Part 2 View All Videos