FCC and the Internet

Today there was a vote in "net neutrality," which has now been approved. The FCC claims that this is aimed at protecting Internet freedom, but given the FCC's track record - that's a bit hard to believe.

The FCC is known for censoring what is on television & radio - and suing those who are unable to keep things clean. The FCC is in charge of what words need to be bleeped and at what time things are allowed to get a little dirtier than usual - but the Internet has not had to deal with the FCC until now.

Internet in the United States has seemed to be a basic right - there is no one in the government saying that we can't go to specific web sites (minus this WikiLeaks scandal and military not being allowed to access the site). Other countries have banned Facebook and other sites, but the United States has kept it so citizens have the freedom to view whatever it is they would like.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that the "rules" of this new approved net neutrality include:

• Transparency for consumers about how the Internet's core players manage the network.

• A right for consumers and innovators to send and recieve lawful traffic and to connect devices of their choice to the network.

• A level playing field, in which government regulators don't pick winners and losers.

• Reasonable flexibility for network management and service pricing, to promote investment and innovation by private firms.

FCC critics on the left say that, by stepping back from bolder ideas it had considered earlier this year, the agency has caved in to corporate interests. The group Free Press, for example, argues the commission should issue an outright ban on "paid prioritization" deals, in which an Internet service provider cuts deals that put data from some clients on a faster track than others. (The FCC said such deals are "unlikely to satisfy" its new policy.)

But on the right, critics say the FCC is trying to fix something that's not broken, and that existing antitrust laws can be used to protect consumers if the need arises. Further, they say, the FCC has no authority from Congress to regulate the Internet.

Obama issued a statement where he called the FCC's decision a victory and even said that it would help freedom of speech.


CNN reports that the new rules could make it so some Internet users are charged more than others based on the type of media used such as watching videos.

"The rules are designed to, in effect, keep the companies that own the internet's real-world infrastructure from slowing down some types of websites or apps -- say, those belonging to a competitor -- or speeding up others for high-paying clients."

The vote was 3 Democrats to 2 Republicans, CNN reports:

The vote was along party lines, with the commission's three Democrats voting to "concur" with the rules and its two Republicans voting against them.

Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, called the vote a "radical step" and said it puts the FCC "on a collision course" with the courts, which he predicted will throw the rules out.
"The FCC is not Congress," he said. "We cannot make laws."

Republicans have largely argued the government has no right to interfere with business practices online.

But CNN reports that not all Democrats are happy with the way this is playing out completely:

Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, signed off on the rules but called them only a "first step in the right direction."

"In my book, today's action could have, and should have, gone further," he said. "Going as far as I would have liked was, however, not in the cards."

For example, he said, the rules won't absolutely prevent broadband providers from "pay for priority" -- giving faster service to those able to pay for it, or to one favored business over another."