Neil Hughes
In a speech delivered at The Brookings Institution in Washington D.C., Genachowski outlined a list of six principles he believes the FCC should follow, and also proposed methods tto achieve those principles. In his address, Genachowski specifically cited the iPhone as a "path-breaking" device that has "enabled millions of us to carry the Internet in our pockets and purses."
He stressed that it is important for the Internet to remain a free and open place, noting that recently some broadband providers have blocked or slowed access to Voice Over IP services and peer-to-peer downloading software.
"In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement," Genachowski said, "I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet."
He proposed that the commission adopt the four principles previously laid out by former Chairman Michael Powell in 2004, known as the "Four Freedoms," as well as two new principles he believes should be added to the list. The six are:
- Freedom to access legal content
- Freedom to use applications of the users' choice
- Freedom to attach personal devices to connections in users' homes
- Freedom to obtain service plan information
- Non-discrimination: Broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications
- Transparency: Providers must be transparent about network management practices
The statements are a major benefit for Apple, which delivers music and movies to millions of users through iTunes. Without Net neutrality, bandwidth for content providers like iTunes could potentially be "throttled," or even altogether blocked, by Internet service providers.
But with regards to its own devices and the AT&T network, Apple has also been on the restrictive side — particularly with respect to Powell's second "freedom," regarding applications. After the Google Voice telephony service was not allowed into the iPhone App Store by Apple, the FCC launched an investigation into the matter. How Genachowski's proposal could affect wireless carriers like AT&T, or handset makers like Apple that engage in exclusive contracts, is not yet clear.
In support of the initiative for a free and open Internet, the FCC launched a new Web site, OpenInternet.gov, Monday. It invites discussion from citizens on the Net neutrality issue, with Genachowski noting that while the goals are clear, "the best path to achieving them is not."
"We are here because 40 years ago, a bunch of researchers in a lab changed the way computers interact and, as a result, changed the world," Genachowski said to close his speech. "We are here because those Internet pioneers had unique insights about the power of open networks to transform lives for the better, and they did something about it. Our work now is to preserve the brilliance of what they contributed to our country and the world. It’s to make sure that, in the 21st century, the garage, the basement, and the dorm room remain places where innovators can not only dream but bring their dreams to life. And no one should be neutral about that."
-m.jpg)
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
44 Comments
The new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
That's going to be . . . a problem.
The new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
That's going to be . . . a problem.
There is a difference between throttling a users connection because he is downloading terabytes worth of data, and throttling the connection to a spcific competitors website all the time. The former would probably still be allowed, the latter explicitly would not.
One important thing this will eventually force ISPs to more publicly advertise is bandwidth caps should they feel that's the best way to manage their network. Saying that they allow "unlimited" bandwidth and really capping at 5GB then charging huge fees afterwards will be vehemently discouraged in the future (wierless ISPs are particularly bad at this).
The new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
That's going to be . . . a problem.
Yeah, wait till customers can't get the bandwidth they are paying for, it's a double edge sword.
The new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
That's going to be . . . a problem.
As the previous poster said, it shouldn't be a problem, especially not for consumers.
If they were allowed to arbitrarily throttle or block certain types of traffic, users and anyone not in the network delivery business business would suffer. Apple makes a nice revenue from music and video download sales. If the largest ISPs in the US went to them and demanded tariffs for this traffic then Apple would suffer. They would either increase prices to the users to cover costs or they lose the ability to deliver to their largest market. The bounties demanded by the ISPs could become unreasonable. Should they be allowed to do this?
The new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
That's going to be . . . a problem.
I actually agree with this. I really really want to see an end to preventing competitive applications and the like--that's just not cool--but if these companies are forced to allow these bandwidth-hogging applications with no limitation and no regard to network performance, we will be the ones who pay the price. How happy will we be with SlingBox on the road if the network quality is so poor that it barely runs?
I think a good first step is making sure that applications aren't denied because they're competitive, but forcing things on networks has to happen when the networks can support it. AT&T's, obviously, cannot. All you have to do is travel through a major point of use (e.g. parts of Manhattan, San Francisco) and the problem is obvious enough.
AT&T better work hard on upgrading their networks...