Time for Net Neutrality

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took a historic step towards developing new rules to safeguard the free and open nature of the Internet, fulfilling a key campaign promise of President Obama's and kicking off a process that has been years in the making.

If adopted, the Commission's net neutrality protections will ensure that users have unfettered access to all lawful online content and applications. These measures, which will be crafted over the coming months by the FCC, are urgently needed to preserve the openness and competition that have made the Internet the most successful communications medium in human history.

Since its earliest days, the Internet has been guided by the principles of non-discrimination and freedom. That means that all ones and zeros are treated equally and special interests and Corporate America can't direct Internet traffic to serve their own purposes at the expense of the public.

From the very beginning of the Internet, this electronic equality has enabled users to innovate, to get their voices heard, to launch new services and business enterprises, and to participate in cultural communications across the planet. Whether you're in the Fortune 500 or the freshman class at the University of Massachusetts, the Internet treats your online activities in the same manner. Whether you're trading stocks or selling socks, the true genius of the Internet is that you never have to ask permission to innovate.

That has always been the genius of the Internet's architecture. But that genius is now under attack - threatened by the prospect that corporations will seek to erect roadblocks on the information superhighway, charging telecommunications tolls every time you visit your favorite website or blog or even watch a video clip. Some corporations are now seeking to provide fast Internet speeds only to those who can afford to pay. Such a two-tiered system would be a radical, wrong-headed departure from the Internet's historic rules of the road and a new financial burden on consumers.

As the Internet continues to evolve, we are now faced with a choice. Can we preserve this wildly successful medium and the freedom it embodies, or do we permit a few large corporations to fundamentally alter how the Internet has historically functioned? Do we retain a level playing field or do we allow the imposition of new fees and the artificial creation of slow lanes and fast lanes for content providers on the Internet?

I strongly believe that we must enshrine basic principles of openness and fairness into the rules governing how Internet service providers operate - giving the FCC the authority to be the proverbial cop on the cyber beat, to ensuring that these principles of freedom and competition are upheld in the marketplace. In this way we can preserve the best of what the Internet is even as it continues to evolve.

The FCC has taken an historic step. Still, we should also ensure that future administrations do not cast aside net neutrality rules. To prevent this from happening, I believe it would be useful to incorporate these principles into law. That's why in July, I introduced H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, along with my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA). Our bill, which is also cosponsored by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA):

1. Stipulates that unfettered access to the Internet to offer, access, and utilize content, services, and applications is vital for consumers and our economy;

2. States that our country's global leadership in high technology stems directly from Internet policies that embraced competition and openness, ensuring that telecommunications networks are open to all lawful uses by all users - policies that now may be under threat if the ability of Internet content, service, and application providers to reach consumers were frustrated by interference from broadband telecommunications network operators;

3. Calls for the United States to adopt a clear network neutrality policy preserving the open nature of Internet communications and networks based on non-discrimination while also permitting Internet service providers to take action to protect network reliability, prevent unwanted electronic mail, and thwart illegal content consistent with the overarching principle of non-discrimination;

4. Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promulgate rules that ensure that providers of Internet access service abide by the duties established in the bill, including not blocking or impeding consumers' ability to access lawful content, applications or service; not preventing consumers from attaching any lawful device that does not harm the provider's network; and providing consumers with detailed information about their Internet service;

5. Makes clear that nothing in this legislation affects any law or regulation addressing prohibited or unlawful activity, including any laws or regulations prohibiting theft of content. Our bill applies these network neutrality principles only to lawful Internet content. It does not undermine carriers' ability to perform network management, nor does it hinder carriers' capacity to fight piracy, or spam, or impact parents' ability to utilize content controls.

The FCC is now in the early stages of developing the rules of the road for the Internet, and our bill, which directs the FCC to undertake such a rulemaking process to preserve the Internet's openness for all users, is a complement to the FCC's efforts.

Now more than ever, as this historic process unfolds and the legislation advances, the voice of the online community - from bloggers to gamers, from artists to small business entrepreneurs, from software engineers to those folks who just sent their first email - now is the time to rise up to defend internet freedom. Anyone reading the words on this blog has a vital role to play - get your voice heard, register your opinion, express your viewpoint. The future of the Internet may depend upon it.

Comments

Anti Czar's picture

Net NON-Neutrality

By Anti Czar (not verified) on November 02, 2009

Ok, I now have a screen shot pic of my newest comment. Are you going to remove that comment as well.

My first comment was 100% accurate. "Net Neutrality" has been endorsed by Google, Microsoft, etc. Those are NOT "Little Guy" companies as you claim this "Net Neutrality" is primarily geared to protect. I on the other hand AM a "Little Guy", yet you happily censored my comment for pointing out that "Net Neutrality" is championed by the SAME organizations that aided in the election of our current President. I also pointed out that "Net Neutrality" was cleverly tucked away within the Stimulus Bill rather than being publicly debated. I personally believe that Net Neutrality is something that people are entitled to have a FAIR debate on, after all we are paying for it, correct? Am I wrong in my assertion that your site willfully censored me and completely contradicted it's supposed intention by doing so?

Gene in SC's picture

A Simple Challenge

By Gene in SC (not verified) on November 04, 2009

Let's ignore the obvious fact that Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem to solve, and ask ourselves one simple question -- Why does anyone think that the FCC is capable of fostering competition and openness? Name one time that the FCC has actually done something that encourages competition. Just one. Local wireline service? Long distance? Wireless?
The truth is, that the FCC, like any governmental body is only capable of growing its own empire. Competition creates free choice and openness. You cannot create competition through regulation; you can only create competition by keeping hands off.
If the FCC tries to create openness with regulation, all we will have is legions of 3-piece suits and briefcases arguing for the government to grant them a share of the pie. Let the consumer decide who gets what piece of the pie.

Tim Karr's picture

Consumers chose Net Neutrality

By Tim Karr on November 04, 2009

Try ignoring these facts:

1. Carterfone Decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone

Led way for an explosion of innovative new devices in the phone marketplace

2. White Spaces Decision: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008346717_opin04freepress...

Opened up spectrum to competition and consumer choice in wireless broadband applications and devices.

3. Program Access Rules: http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/Publication.3677.html

Fostered satellite TV competition and consumer choice.

4. Computer Inquiries: http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/ciii.htm

Helped create the open Internet itself. Without these rules Ma Bell (AT&T) would have smothered the Internet in the cradle.

5. Part 15 unlicensed rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_47_CFR_Part_15

Lead to development of WiFi, led to you being able to play your ipod in your car over FM signals.

All are FCC decisions that fostered openness, innovation and competition. And I'm just getting started. Need more examples?

Anonymous's picture

inter net freedom

By Anonymous (not verified) on November 02, 2009

no one has the right to control the web but the people to do other wise is to over ride our constitutional rights of free speech

ken's picture

It's not the governments web

By ken (not verified) on November 02, 2009

It is not the governments responsibility to regulate or * deregulate the Internet. Keep the government out. If you allow Congress to say something is deregulated it will most certainly lead to regulation in the future. This bill is step one in allowing congress control over the what we generally are allowed to see online.

steve santers's picture

The Internet Brain

By steve santers (not verified) on November 01, 2009

There is a much more fundamental reason why we need to save the net: it is turning into a thinking brain. This is the argument from the new book Wired for Thought (Harvard; Sept 2009) and the author goes to great lengths to argue for net neutrality. Probably no surprise that when I looked up the author (Jeffrey Stibel), he was on the same Board as Obama's FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski. Book is at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Wired-Thought-Shaping-Future-Internet/dp/142214664....

Or a good portion of the excerpts seems to be available at: www.wiredforthought.com.

Anonymous's picture

???

By Anonymous (not verified) on October 31, 2009

this is not a move to police the internet, this is a move to restrict it.

Wolfgang muller's picture

Internet should be saved at

By Wolfgang muller (not verified) on October 31, 2009

Internet should be saved at all costs as any work requires the usage of the internet at some point of its progress and no task can be completed today without the help of the internet.

Burn the Witch's picture

This truly is an historic

By Burn the Witch (not verified) on October 30, 2009

This truly is an historic occasion. The gradual erosion of rights and freedoms has now reached the internet. I find it ironic that this tragic first step in more government involvement in the internet is published by freepress.

Freedomprayer's picture

True that. We need to

By Freedomprayer (not verified) on October 31, 2009

True that. We need to protect our freedoms, not have more government saying what we will do and what we will hear. I am praying that America doesn't go too socialist before the election of 2012.

jim's picture

net nuetrality

By jim (not verified) on October 30, 2009

first the gov't regulates fairness on net speeds and equal access for all. this sets a presedent for a right to access the net, which leads to gov't subsidies. since the gov't is paying for it, they will treat the net as state property. What happened to a "free and open internet? Where's the nuetrality? Let the free market provide a solution. I already pay more for faster speeds, it uses more bandwidth, it should cost more.

UtzChips's picture

net neutrality

By UtzChips (not verified) on October 30, 2009

"Let the free market provide a solution."

I ask you: 1. What do you think the "free market" would have provided for a solution to the financial debacle?
2. Why did the "free market" allow its internal corruption to create such a financial debacle?
3. If the CEO has been quoted as been saying that it is not his, nor his Co.'s responsibility to take into account the health of their customers when selecting the meals they offer, what is it that leads you to believe that the "free market" would take a course of action that protects freedom of speech?

I am not saying that the Govt. should have control, I am simply asking you to explain your faith in the free market system when it comes to your faith it its fairness.

Try to stay on topic and just address my questions.

Burn the Witch's picture

1. The "financial debacle"

By Burn the Witch (not verified) on October 30, 2009

1. The "financial debacle" has nothing to do with the original topic.

2. The "free market", as you call it, was rife with government interference that encouraged poor lending practices and the creation of dubious mortagage-backed securities that were the real catalyst of the financial crisis that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

3. Private speech on a corporation's medium of communication is not protected under the First Ammendment. Government regulation of a private entity's internet content is antithetical to Free Speech.

If you wish people to "stay on topic" it would be useful if you would do the same. One out of three isn't good.

Rmath's picture

It's Neutrality..

By Rmath (not verified) on October 30, 2009

Why are you whining about regulation? If we'd had some regulation a year ago, the Wall Street meltdown could have been avoided. Not all of us have such a convenient memory.

It is the proper role of FCC to apply rules and standards to this issue. The "free market" shouldn't be an excuse to allow ISPs to block or censor content available to the public. This is America, remember?

Mike's picture

I'm confused. Are ISPs

By Mike (not verified) on October 30, 2009

I'm confused. Are ISPs blocking content? The Internet is a privilege, not right. Why should my tax dollars be spent to provide that privilege for those can't afford it. How would regulating the Internet have stopped a Wall Street meltdown? And don't try to tell me an FCC regulated Internet would be fare and open. Under the FCC bureaucratic policies and regulation would destroy any semblance of free speech and government committees would most definitely quash any dissension.

Tim Karr's picture

You do sound confused. ISPs

By Tim Karr on October 31, 2009

You do sound confused. ISPs are blocking content both on the wired and wireless Web. This might help clear things up and illustrate why we need to ensure a neutral net through a regulatory standard:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/faq

If that's not enough see:

http://www.freepress.net/node/43776

Your final sentence gives off a distinct whiff of "death panel" paranoia. No, Net Neutrality wouldn't create "government committees" pouring over the Internet to quash free speech. It actually accomplishes the opposite, protecting everyone's right to share ideas via the Internet without any gatekeeper intervention.

really rand's picture

socialism sucks

By really rand (not verified) on October 31, 2009

socialism is not an answer!