Responses to FCC Chairman Genachowski’s speech proposing a process to arrive at federal “net neutrality” regulations.

The Washington Post reports, “AT&T Says Keep Net Neutrality Rules Off Wireless“:

In response to the announcement, AT&T officials said they would support broadly the principles outlined by Genachowski for their wireline business. They don’t think the rules should apply to wireless.

“We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America, wireless services,” Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, said in a statement.

From The Hill, “FCC chairman outlines net neutrality rules“:

Verizon Vice President of Regulatory Affairs David Young said the company supports an open Internet, but said placing formal rules over network operations could lead “to unintended consequences.”

“We certainly don’t want to see the Internet locked in stone as it is today,” he said. “The Internet needs to be free to continue to evolve.”

From CTIA — the Wireless Association, a statement from Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Chris Guttman-McCabe, excerpts:

As we have said before, we are concerned about the unintended consequences Internet regulation would have on consumers considering that competition within the industry has spurred innovation, investment, and growth for the U.S. economy.

As a justification for the adoption of rules, the Chairman suggested that one reason for concern ‘has to do with limited competition among service providers.’ This is at the core of our concerns. Unlike the other platforms that would be subject to the rules, the wireless industry is extremely competitive, extremely innovative, and extremely personal. How do the rules apply to the single-purpose Amazon Kindle? How does it apply to Google’s efforts to cache content to provide a better consumer experience? How about the efforts from Apple and Android, Blackberry and Nokia, Firefly and others to differentiate the products and services they develop for consumers? Should all product and service offerings be the same?

Note, as well, Guttman-McCabe’s comments on investment.

The Federal Communications Commission has launched a new website — www.openinternet.gov — which features today’s speech at the Brookings Institution by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, “Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity.”

Chairman Genachowski proposed making the four principles of Internet openness as Commission rules and adds two more:

Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination

The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination — stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications.

Sixth Principle of Transparency

The sixth principle is a transparency principle — stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.

Genachowski said he would distribute proposed rules to his FCC colleagues and follow through with a proposed rule-making to bring the public into the process.

He added:
• The FCC will look at each violation on a case-by-case basis;
• Adherence to these principles would not require the disclosure of consumer PII, economically sensitive data, proprietary technologies, or network management strategies; and
• These principles would apply to all modes of internet access, including mobile architectures.

To this layman, it seemed like a very general speech. The Chairman argued, “This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It’s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity.” Good!

From the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, “Commerce Committee Approves Nominees”

WASHINGTON D.C. - Today the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee conducted an off the floor markup on the nominations of:

 

•       Ms. Inez M. Tenenbaum: To be Chairman and Commissioner of the United States Consumer

         Product Safety Commission

 

•        Mr. Julius Genachowski: To be Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission

 

•        Mr. Robert McDowell: To be Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission

 

•        The Committee also considered nominations for promotion of U.S. Coast Guard officers.

 

The nominees were all successfully voted out of Committee. 

The Heritage Foundation hosted FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell today at the weekly Blogger’s Luncheon, ostensibly to apologize for the FCC rapping Comcast on the knuckles, all in the name of Net Neutrality. Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate joined Commissioner McDowell in voting against the majority in demonizing Comcast, as they saw that there was no evidence that Comcast actually did anything wrong. For those of you who have better things to do on a summer day than pay attention to the FCC, here’s a quick and dirty recap of the issue: Comcast network managers spotted a huge spike in bandwidth during a period of peak Internet usage, tracing it to kids downloading hundreds of megabytes of movies and music from BitTorrent, a media downloading site. Acting as traffic cops, Comcast decided to slow down the flow of bits from BitTorrent in favor of traffic from other applications and sites that are more dependant upon the speedy flow of bits, such as VoIP.

In the words of Net Neutrality pundits, they’ve committed the sin of Internet Discrimination. It would seem as if the FCC agrees as well. In a series of public hearings a la traveling road show, Comcast was held up for the masses to pelt them with rocks and garbage while yelling “burn the witch.” In a turn worthy of John Cleese and Eric Idle, the FCC on August 1 decided to do just that, and ordered Comcast to stop impeding traffic on the Internet and make transparent their policies to their customers, lest they be whacked with fines. Okay, maybe it wasn’t a burning per se, more like an uncomfortable stay in the sauna, but the intent was there.

But what did Comcast do to deserve this punishment? They violated the FCC’s Broadband Policy Principles. Let me reiterate the last part: PRINCIPLES. Not laws, not regulations, not rules, but principles (See ‘em here). They were developed with no public hearing, no notice of rule making, no due process. Legally speaking, they’re most likely unenforceable. The sad part is that Chairman Martin yelled “witch,” too.

But Comcast sinned, did they not? Phooey. In reality, they’ve practiced the virtue of Responsible Network Management. In their role as a traffic cop on their stretch of the Information Superhighway, they saw a bandwidth hog that would’ve backed up rush-hour traffic and they took it out of the HOV lane.

Commissioner McDowell said that this will be very easy for Comcast to appeal, as the FCC has no rules in place for this, thus no authority to enforce anything. Citing the “Brand X” Supreme Court Decision (stating that cable Internet companies provide “information services” governed by Title I of the Communications Act and are not “telecommunications services” under Title II), the cable companies are under no obligation to treat all traffic equally. That’s the law.

Talk to anyone who knows anything about network management and they’ll tell you that the Internet is ALL ABOUT discrimination – choosing which packet needs priority over another. For instance, it’s more important that VoIP packets get priority over a packet with part of the best sports clip ever filmed because a VoIP call requires complete synchronicity lest confusion, echoing and dead silence ruin the call. If my sport clip packet is delayed because of your VoIP packet got priority, the clip may download in 12 seconds instead of 10. That’s something I can live with.

But what if this is some kind of nefarious plot from Comcast to slow down the Internet sites that compete with them? Commissioner McDowell says to check out the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act as your remedy. Tried and tested, it’s been around since 1890 and is reasonably sure to have the most evil of corporate malfeasors quaking in their Bruno Magli wingtips as soon as they see the summons.

Maybe in the end, the Comcast decision will be a good thing – if upheld, it’ll show Congress that the process works and the FCC is protecting the interests of the Internet consumer, and there’s no need for intrusive legislation. I suggested this to Commissioner McDowell, and he told me in so many words to go and click my ruby heels together (in a polite way, of course). “Appeasement doesn’t work,” were his exact words. Ah, well.