Members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) agreed on one thing at Tuesday's meeting: the Internet does not need to be fixed. Despite this shared sentiment, the FCC's commissioners are divided on whether the government should act in anticipation of potential problems as the Internet matures. The panel voted 3–2 in favor of the Open Internet Order, designed to ensure what has commonly been referred to as "net neutrality".

Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn joined FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in passing the order, whereas commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker strongly dissented, disagreeing with the government's involvement in enforcing conduct on the Internet.

Genachowski acknowledged that the Internet and the World Wide Web have blossomed despite minimal federal regulation, but he also expressed concern over a lack of enforceable rules to protect consumers from any emerging Internet-related practices that might divide users into haves and have-nots. "I believe our actions today foster an ongoing cycle of massive investment, innovation and consumer demand both at the edge and in the core of broadband networks," he said during the meeting in Washington, D.C.

The order addresses several key principles: Users have a right to information about the performance of their broadband connections as well as the way in which their broadband providers manage the network itself (in particular, how they prioritize different types of traffic). The order, which applies to both fixed and wireless broadband services, prohibits the unlawful blocking of content, apps, services and the connection of devices to the network.

The Open Internet Order's goal is to create a level playing field where the commercial market, rather than the government or some other central authority, picks winners or losers, according to Genachowski, who added, "That's the role of the commercial market and the marketplace of ideas." As such, the order does not permit pay-for-priority arrangements between broadband providers and businesses operating on the Internet that would produce so-called fast lanes for some companies' content but not for others. Such arrangements "would allow broadband providers to skew the marketplace by favoring one idea, application or service over another by selectively prioritizing Internet traffic," he said.

This does not, however, prohibit broadband providers from developing tiered-pricing models to help them manage the expansion of and help with the investment in high-speed networks. The key distinction here is that it would be up to broadband providers, not their customers, to decide which content is prioritized.

"The crux of the order we're adopting, which is based on a strong and sound legal framework rooted in the [Tele]communications Act, is straightforward," Genachowski said. The order establishes an Open Internet Advisory Committee to ensure that these rules are adopted and enforced.

Genachowski also indicated that his support for the order was influenced in no small way by the position of Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee. The chairman cited a Berners-Lee article in the December issue of Scientific American at Tuesday's meeting, saying, "Although the Internet and Web generally thrive on lack of regulation, some basic values have to be legally preserved."

The commissioners opposed to the FCC's new broadband rules indicated that industry groups had been successful in monitoring Internet fairness and questioned whether the federal government had the legal right to intervene. McDowell said the order suffered from "regulatory hubris" and added, "Fortunately, the cures for this malady are obtainable in court." In a Wall Street Journal editorial on Sunday, McDowell wrote, "Nothing is broken that needs fixing."

Baker concurred. In a Washington Post editorial on Tuesday, she wrote, "Discouragingly, the FCC is intervening to regulate the Internet because it wants to, not because it needs to."

7 Comments

1. 1. jtdwyer 05:49 PM 12/21/10

   I'm glad to see that there appears to be established a method for providers to protect the performance of interactive users from commercial bulk video transfers that would otherwise get free access to backbone network bandwidth. Let 'movie rental' services pay for their own infrastructure requirements.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. akmangalick 12:18 AM 12/22/10

   This article is clearly a cursory explanation of the rule, but I don't understand the difference between these two seemingly contradictory statements:
   
   "...the order does not permit pay-for-priority arrangements between broadband providers and businesses...."
   and
   "This does not, however, prohibit broadband providers from developing tiered-pricing models...."

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. JamesDavis 08:55 AM 12/22/10

   It is confusing. The businesses that provide movies or other large data files to their customers are already paying for broadband access either through their internet provider of cell phone provider. Why should an internet provider like AT&T or Verizon be allowed to double charge these companies and customers to download free or purchased downloads or prevent some company downloads broadband access? No one can use the internet for free except the internet provider. There should be some kind of law that says that internet providers cannot deny or limit access to an already paying business or customer.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. lgreenemeier 04:23 PM 12/22/10

   Thanks for your comment. "Pay-for-priority" arrangements are those in which a content provider (for example, Netflix) would pay a broadband provider (Time Warner Cable, Comcast or some local ISP) to prioritize their content over other types of content (such as a competitors' content). "Tiered-pricing models" refer to what broadband providers can charge their customers (i.e. you and me) for accessing content on the Internet. This is similar to what South Korea is doing, where a consumer can pay a certain amount to access the Net at "normal" speeds or they can pay extra for higher faster bandwidth speeds. I don't think it's clear yet whether you would have to pay up front for the faster speeds or pay as you go (and be billed the following month based on how much you used the faster backbone). This would have been handy yesterday when watching the FCC's Webcast, which hung up every minute or so over my connection. With a faster connection, the Webcast would have been much more fluid. I hope this helps.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. ScientistOfGnomes 04:23 PM 12/22/10

   It's unfair to the consumer who is already paying for a highspeed internet connection to have their data prioritized to a lower bandwidth.
   
   To be honest, the current internet infrastructure and the technologies in place at this time are not sufficent for the potential increase demand of bandwidth. Especially in the near future.
   
   Computer Scientists have been addressing this for years. Perhaps it's time to overhal or at least implament better routing or transmission mechanisms.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. jtdwyer in reply to JamesDavis 09:17 PM 12/22/10

   It is complicated. Lets say that the internet is the national road system. If everyone who has a driveway is paying for some standard internet access speed, that really only handles the cost of street access from your house. Let's assume that houses average two cars. That doesn't prevent a business from building a six lane entrance to their facility and receiving and sending 3 truck concurrently, nonstop around the clock. You may find the truck traffic slows you down a bit in your travels around town, especially if most towns have several such businesses. The road system will likely be pretty much full of trucks...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. silencedogoodgauge 03:10 PM 12/24/10

   Please forgive my tangency. Though the first amendment of the United States Constitution grants each citizen the freedom of speech, there is no such provision to be heard. The media and current internet technology provides little encouragement for civil discourse approaching wider demographics. Here is some optimistic encouragement developed through a Public Incubator called the Do Good Gauge.
   
   <b>The Humanity of Problem Solving</b>
   <i>By Scott Nesler</i>
   
   Why take the time to methodically describe a problem? Why seek the advice of others to clarify a working solution? The answer is within the human spirit to be heard and understood.
   
   Life expectancy is 67.2 years in a humanity of 6.8 billion. Let's say within one's lifetime 3 problems fester for resolution. Let's then cut a little off life expectancy for maturity and degradation to come up with 51 years to express knowledge. 51 divided by 3 is 17. 17 years to describe a coherent solution to a perplexing problem. If everyone did their part 400 million coherent points of view would be described on a yearly basis.
   
   "What a crazy notion, you could only hope to get a small percentage of participation!" I disagree, but .25% still leaves 1 million points of view per year.
   
   "A fraction of the populace can produce an intelligent point of view!" I agree, but suggest the fraction approaches 1. Even if the remaining 1/2 percent is capable, that leaves 5,000 quality solutions added to a repository of knowledge on a yearly basis. That's 13 refined expressions of intelligence, from a humanity of thought, to read on a daily basis. 13 intelligent opinions is the daily equivalent of the number absorbed from a media of a few thousand privileged individuals.
   
   6.8 billion people! 67.2 years per existence! Oh, the potential for knowledge, understanding, and humanity!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this