The New York Times is reporting on a Net Neutrality proposal FCC chair Julius Genachowksi is floating in the lead up to a December 21 meeting of the commission when they might decide on regulating Internet broadband providers. The initial outline is disappointing, at best.
In a speech he plans to give Wednesday in Washington, Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman, will outline a framework for broadband Internet service that forbids both wired and wireless Internet service providers from blocking lawful content. But the proposal would allow broadband providers to charge consumers different rates for different levels of service, according to a text of the speech provided to The New York Times.
Mr. Genachowski has decided not to use the commission’s telephone regulatory powers to govern broadband Internet service, a move that he proposed in May that would potentially open Internet service to heavier government regulation.
His proposal would also allow broadband providers to manage their networks to limit congestion or harmful traffic....
For wireless broadband, the fastest-growing segment of the industry, the proposal includes a transparency requirement and "a basic no-blocking rule" covering Web sites and certain applications that compete with services that the broadband provider also offers.
But Mr. Genachowski says he recognizes "differences between fixed and mobile broadband," and therefore will allow for flexibility for wireless rules. But he said he planned to "address anticompetitive or anticonsumer behavior as appropriate."
This isn't Net Neutrality. Free Press's Josh Silver details the ways in which it falls far short of what's necdessary to protect the open Internet, based on what the Times has reported.
According to the Times, the proposal:
- Fails to restore the FCC's authority over Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and AT&T. This presents the unnecessary risk that the new rules, if passed, will be swiftly rejected by the courts. Any other future rules related to the Internet, such as competition policy (which would give you more choices than your expensive monopoly cable and phone company) would suffer the same fate if the chairman continues to avoid the politically challenging but absolutely essential moves that would restore his agency's authority.
- Offers weak protections against "paid prioritization." That is, it could allow ISPs to create tolls on the open Internet that would favor the traffic of a select few who could pay by slowing down the traffic of everyone else. Worse yet, it opens a loophole for "specialized services" that could lead to the creation of a new "private Internet" for a few giant media companies. You might remember that idea as one of the worst ones in the Google-Verizon pact last summer.
- Fails to make even Genachowski's tepid protections apply to wireless connections using mobile devices. With the inevitable explosion of super-fast wireless Internet connections during the next decade, it represents the most blatant sellout to the likes of Verizon and AT&T. Both companies view wireless Internet and phone service as the future. And both companies are among Washington's biggest spenders on PR firms, lobbyists and campaign contributions.
Genachowski needs three votes on the commission to pass this. If previous statements are a guide, this isn't good enough for strong Net Neutrality proponents and Democratic Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps. They could--and should--hold out for much stronger Internet protections, the kinds of protections both Genachowski and then candidate Obama promised.
We've got three weeks to convince the FCC to do better. Sign this petition to tell Genachowski he needs to keep his and President Obama's promise, and keep the Internet open.
