FCC Net neutrality rules reach mobile apps

Mobile providers can't restrict VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) apps, and "paid prioritization" is illegal, according to 194 pages of rules approved Tuesday that are nevertheless public.

federal communications commission, domestic policy, government and politics, internet, media and broadcasting policy, net neutrality, political policy, politics, science and innovation, science and innovation policy

The Federal Communications Commission after all released its long-expected regulations on Thursday, which it had before approved on a 3-2 party line vote previously this week, and they're not specifically "ridiculously" simple. The rules and the related explanations total a whopping 194 pages.

A series of disputes erupted last year over whether Skype would be allowed on smartphones and over whether it was AT&T or Apple that was responsible for Google Voice not appearing in the iPhone's App Store. In October 2009, AT&T agreed to support VoIP applications just as Skype on its 3G network, and Google Voice appeared as an iPhone application last month.

The legality of paid prioritization

The legality of "paid prioritization", which earlier was ambiguous, as well has been cleared up. The concept means a broadband provider favoring some traffic over other traffic. That would mean Amazon.com can't, theoretically, pay Comcast for its Web site to load faster than Barnes & Noble's.

The FCC acknowledged there's no evidence that "U.S. broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements". Nevertheless because any pay-for-priority deals would "represent a significant departure from historical" practice and potentially raise barriers-to-entry on the Internet, they should be outlawed.

That section of Thursday's order, which has been championed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, rejects arguments about paid prioritization that AT&T made before this year. As CNET reported at that time, AT&T noted it already had "hundreds" of clients who have paid extra for higher-priority services, and it argued that the Internet Engineering Task Force's specifications explicitly permit the practice.

Genachowski had said while Tuesday's vote that the rules would require all broadband providers including mobile services to disclose their network management practices, and that non-mobile providers would be prohibited from blocking and "unreasonably" discriminating against network traffic.

- Internet providers are allowed to block users from committing copyright infringement, "which has adverse consequences for the economy", even though the FCC on purpose left ambiguous the extent of this authority.

The definition of reasonable network management

- The definition of "reasonable" network management: "Appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and innovation of the broadband Internet access service".

- All broadband providers, including mobile wireless providers, must disclose their network practices. That includes "descriptions of congestion management practices; types of traffic subject to practices; purposes served by practices; practices' effects on end users' experience; criteria used in practices, just as indicators of congestion that trigger a practice, and the typical frequency of congestion; usage limits and the consequences of exceeding them; and references to engineering standards, where appropriate".

Robert McDowell, a Republican, dissented from the vote, saying the FCC did not have the legal authority to enact Internet regulations. The real effect, he predicted, would be: "Less investment. Less technology. Increased business costs. Increased prices for consumers. Disadvantages to smaller ISPs. Jobs lost."

And more than a few Republican members of Congress--including incoming House Speaker John Boehner--have slammed the FCC's action as an illegal attempt to regulate the Internet. In the 2011 funding bill, they could prohibit the FCC from enforcing any such rules.

Now my question is what specifically "belongs" to a criminal enterprise full of thieves like Apple? Apple is structured like the Mafia as I ha...