Four Democratic congressmen have joined together to denounce a Google-Verizon proposal that they believe will spell the death of net neutrality. They've written to the head of the FCC, asking that he act soon, and not allow "two large communications companies with a vested interest in the outcome" to decide the Internet's future.
The congressmen are all on the House Energy and Commerce committee --- Ed Markey (D-MA), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Jay Inslee (D-WA), and Anna Eshoo (D-CA). Markey has a long-time interest in telecommunications issues, is the author of H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act and has long been a leading voice for net neutrality.
The Congressmen wrote the letter to Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the FCC. They're asking the FCC to act now to preserve net neutrality, and specifically criticize key points of the Google-Verizon proposal. (You can download the letter as a PDF here.)
As I've written in a previous blog, the Google-Verizon proposal would hasten the death of net neutrality in several ways. First is that the companies are asking that wireless service be excluded from net neutrality rules.
The congressmen, in no uncertain terms, disagree. They write:
"Exclusion of wireless services from open Internet requirements could widen the digital divide by establishing a substandard, less open experience for traditionally underserved regions and demographic groups that may more often need to access or choose to access the Internet on a mobile device. Moreover, such inconsistent principles could confuse consumers, who would have different and uneven experiences depending solely on the connection that their devices might use to reach the Internet. An Internet framework excluding wireless from important consumer safeguards could impede attainment of national broadband goals, while lessening the potential for wireless platforms to serve unserved and underserved areas."
The other part of the proposal that would help kill net neutrality is a vague broad loophole for "additional or differentiated services" or managed services that providers might want to offer. What are these managed services? No one seems to know.
The congressmen take dead aim at that as well. They warn that "Broad 'managed services' exceptions would swallow open Internet rules" and go on to say:
"An overbroad definition of the proposed 'managed services" category would sap the vitality and stunt the growth of the Internet...By undermining competition and the value of the open Internet, managed services could have significantly negative consequences for consumers and commercial enterprise."
The congressmen want the FCC to establish rules to guarantee that there will be net neutrality and an open Internet. They take direct aim at Google and Verizon, writing that:
"Rather than expansion upon a proposal by two large communications companies with a vested interest in the outcome, formal FCC action is needed."
Why are the congressmen asking the FCC to act, and to act now? Because they know that Congress won't act. As ars technica points out, "Congress has been quite direct in saying that it has no plans to act." That's because Republican are against a net neutrality proposal, and a number of Democrats are against it as well. So as a practical matter, there simply aren't enough votes to pass a net neutrality law.
So now it's up to the FCC. Will Google and Verizon be able to trump that agency? The answer will go a long way toward determining whether the Internet stays open or not.
***
by Declan McCullagh | August 17, 2010
A group of four Democratic politicians claims that a proposal announced last week by Google and Verizon does not give the federal government enough authority to regulate the Internet.
The companies' Net neutrality proposal does not grant the Federal Communications Commission sufficient "oversight authority" and should permit the agency to slap new regulations on wireless services, the politicians said in a letter on Monday.
It was addressed to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, a fellow Democrat, who has been left in an awkward position after a federal appeals court slapped down the agency's attempt to punish Comcast.
Since that ruling, liberal interest groups have been lobbying Genachowski for a new set of regulations, even though a majority of members of the U.S. Congress has opposed the idea. The Google-Verizon framework--which is not formal legislation but instead is a set of concepts--represents the companies' attempt to craft a workable compromise and bring some finality to the often-chaotic discussions of what regulations could be imposed on tomorrow's Internet.
Monday's letter, drafted by Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, says the idea of curbing FCC authority over wireless services "could widen the digital divide by establishing a substandard, less open experience for traditionally underserved regions and demographic groups that may more often need to access or choose to access the Internet on a mobile device."
"The FCC must have oversight authority for broadband access services," the letter said.
It also was signed by Anna Eshoo, whose district includes Palo Alto, Calif., Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, and Jay Inslee of Washington state.
Because of the breadth of opposition in Congress to new, wide-ranging Net neutrality rules, the letter is intended to be mostly symbolic by lending visible support to a Democrat-controlled FCC. (Some Republicans already have been proposing preemptive legislation to halt what they call an FCC power grab.)
A secondary effect likely will be to rally the special interest groups that have been vocal in condemning the Google-Verizon proposal. Joel Kelsey, political adviser for Free Press, worries that it might "transform the free and open Internet into a closed platform like cable television," and activist groups (including some that refocused their anti-war protesting) showed up in front of the Googleplex last week.
No comments:
Post a Comment