Watch the Open Commission Meeting
Get FCC Updates
Syndicate
Subscribe to Blog Posts
Subscribe to Blog Comments
|

Categories Category: From the Chairman
Category: Rule-Making
Category: Policy
Category: Events

Archives Archives for December 2010
Archives for September 2010
Archives for August 2010
Archives for May 2010
Archives for April 2010
Archives for March 2010
Archives for February 2010
Archives for January 2010
Archives for December 2009
Archives for November 2009
Archives for October 2009

OpenInternet.gov/blog

October 14th, 2009 by Julius Genachowski - Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

Julius GenachowskiThe Internet’s open architecture has enabled this network of networks to become a unparalleled platform for innovation and speech, as well as an enduring engine for economic growth. Last month, I proposed that the FCC adopt a fair and high-level framework to preserve an open Internet.

While my goals are clear, the path to achieving them involves many hard questions about how best to maximize the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet. Getting input from all stakeholders will be important as the Commission begins to address many critical questions.  That is why we launched OpenInternet.gov.

We wanted to create a place where people could join the discussion about the open Internet. While OpenInternet.gov is still in Beta, we are encouraged that thousands of visitors have already used the site to watch my speech proposing open Internet principles and more than 500 people have offered comments.

Today, we are expanding the ways people can use OpenInternet.gov to participate in this discussion by launching the site’s blog. Visitors to this blog will be able to find expert commentary from FCC staff on how best to preserve the Internet’s openness and questions that arise during this debate. Our staff hopes to use this forum not only to share ideas but also to receive them. We encourage all visitors to weigh in with their own thoughts and engage in an open dialogue.

The blog will also offer timely information on the FCC’s latest activities to preserve an open Internet. On that front, we have an important announcement to make. Next Thursday, October 22, my fellow Commissioners and I will be hosting a meeting at the FCC’s headquarters to begin the process of establishing rules to preserve the Internet’s openness. These proceedings will be open to the public and streamed live on this site. Please check it out, and let us know what you think.

This blog is just the latest piece of an agency-wide effort to engage the public. We hope you will take advantage of it and keep coming back.

  1. Guest says:

    Please investigate Apple and AT&T removing tethering from the iPhone in the 3.1 update, as well as their prevention of VoIP applications!

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  2. Mountainman says:

    Regardless of what currently works best or what will need to change to meet the increasing needs and demands of internet users, we DO NOT need the government controlling it. To do so begins to smell of “Big Brother Watching”…

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 1.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Guest says:

      OH. MY. GOD. You’ve really bellied up to the Neocon kool-aid now, haven’t you?

      Net Neutrality means that no signal, no packet, no destination gets priority over any other, every provider treated equally as is every user.

      Picture the telephone company refusing to connect your call to a retailer other than their “preferred partner”; or connecting it so you can only make our every third word, or disconnected you after a few seconds… Of course the phone company thinks that’s a fantastic idea, but that SHOULD be the only one that thinks so.

      VA:F [1.6.5_908]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  3. Sam says:

    So many of the anti-Government types would have said no to government involvement in the creation of the internet or and the interstate highway system. The way they condemn it, you would think that the American Government is the Great Satan our enemies say it is. I trust our leaders as imperfect as they may. I trust and respect the Constitution. I trust the Constitution more than I fear our Government.

    Sammcarr

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  4. SCLee says:

    Since the government essentially created the internet (see history of DARPA and IPTO), it has every right to set the rules for use and should mandate internet neutrality.

    While I am skeptical of government involvement in our lives, allowing private companies to control our internet access is a subject on which I am beyond mere skepticism. The government is at least ostensibly working for the common good, while private companies cannot even make this claim.

    Corporations exist to make money, and that is a fine and noble goal. It’s also why the government needs to enforce neutrality: The most lucrative use of the internet by a private company would be to give the highest priority to those users who pay the most or those with whom the company agrees politically.

    The government should do its job and keep the internet free and open to everyone, regardless of his opinion or wealth. Please enforce internet neutrality.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  5. Guest says:

    Please leave things as they are!

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  6. Mary says:

    I have been professionally involved in communications and internet technologies for over 30 years. By and large, innovations that have created the most substantial benefit for the public have originated in market-based, technology-heavy, independent companies adapting NASA, military, and huge-scale technologies to make them useful for the public as real products. Those innovations are the ones that have created enormous value in communications, medicine, physics, mechanics, and metallurgy. Government agencies, on the other hand, have no productive value – can’t make anything, productize anything, or create new value. On the contrary, from the days of the dissolution of the original AT&T monopoly all the way through the shift from voice to data over our various communications infrastructure, every attempt at government intervention has produced less, not more, flexibility, innovation, and utility. Only private industry can take the risks necessary to produce value. The FCC has a charter to protect the freedom of our strategic infrastructure of communications, not to create a government engine of social change, limitation, or propaganda. The Internet is a tempting target for government. It is a technology fabric woven into our society, not just nationally, but globally. Obviously, those who want to morph social or political change find any additional control of that fabric an enticing prospect. So we are wary of the FCC’s stated position and skeptical of its efficacy. More regulation will cripple America’s competitive advantage in information, limit the free exchange of business information that rides on the Internet “highway” and slow the advancement of our economy. Beware. Unintended and nefarious consequences are inevitable as the FCC’s involvement in restriction increases. So what’s my suggestion? Do not invest in areas in which private enterprise is willing to take risk. Do not restrict information flow or contractual relationships through FCC intervention, either covert or overt. Do not establish regulatory groups of people who are government bureaucrats over an essential technical capability — such action is like allowing folks with a great idea but no engineering skill to design bridges on our interstate highways. The less you do the better. The Internet is already Open – OpenInternet appears to be a reversion to the kind of monopolistic and political regulation that caused a serious dislocation in our country over telephone communication in the past. In other words, OpenInternet appears to be a synonym for GovernedInternet or maybe RestrictedInternet, or even ControlledInternet. It will be very interesting to watch the progress of the various initiatives on these sites and weigh the long-term unintended consequences of the FCC’s actions.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 1.9/5 (28 votes cast)
    • Bill says:

      I agree that the private sector has brought great innovation to the Internet. I believe that the best way to ensure continued innovation, like internet video, is to ensure that the commercial telecom giants cannot come to dominate what individuals who use the internet can access or what markets businesses can enter. Net neutrality is merely a way of ensuring that. The non-neutral landscape that telecoms would like to see is the capacity to extract extra cash (beyond bandwidth charges) from businesses in exchange for the right to use the internet for high-bandwidth content. Right now, the network is dumb — generally, any individuals that are willing to pay for bandwidth can exchange any type of information they want for no extra charge. What telecoms have said recently is that they want to control this access and take a cut from the businesses that serve content to individuals in order to have the right to use their networks.
      In my opinion, this would be disaster for innovation on the internet. What would happen is that new, small startups would be shut out of these bandwidth-intensive businesses because they would not be able to pay off the telecoms in order to get access. The big media players — NBC/GE, Fox, and so on — would be able to pay, but the next youtube wouldn’t. I don’t see anything to recommend a non-neutral system other than to bolster the market position and balance sheets of telecoms and big media.

      VA:F [1.6.5_908]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  7. Guest says:

    Heavily regulating wireless networks will reduce the investment in Michigan and cut into job growth. The proposed regulations on traditional and wireless broadband service will shut off the internet to many areas in the state and further cost jobs and investment. Half truths and leaving out all the facts is a common tactic in politics and it is happening here. This is not good for the people. Who is getting paid back for campaign funding here or lobbying hard to get this put through? Or is this just political power grabbing for control that is common these days with politicians? Vote NO on this! Don’t be fooled by the play on words this is not open internet when the government is regulating it, just like it is not choice when the government runs health care and forces people to pay for it. It is not free speech when the government imposes the fairness doctrine. It is not transparency when the government controls most of the media and demonizes the rest. Be careful when making your opinion by one persons statements

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 1.4/5 (19 votes cast)
    • Shaun says:

      “Half truths and leaving out all the facts is a common tactic in politics and it is happening here.” Your own words seem to negate the effect of your previous two statements. How is “heavily regulating wireless networks” going to “reduce investment… and cut into job growth?” How is such regulation going to “shut off the internet to many areas?” You offer predictions with nothing to back up your claims beyond “Big Brother” paranoia. In essence, how is ensuring that ISPs do not offer preferential treatment of certain internet traffic going to amount to anything but good for the public?

      VA:F [1.6.5_908]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  8. David Fletcher says:

    No to net neutrality. I and many others don’t trust government intrusions in anything that involves the constitition except to defend it. Leave our right to free speech alone and quit spending the money that you don’t have.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 1.2/5 (35 votes cast)
    • Guest says:

      what ?, this statement means nothing…….

      you want net neurality to preserve free speech.

      VA:F [1.6.5_908]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)
    • mobius says:

      You, sir, are obviously too stupid to own a computer. Net neutrality ensures free speech, it doesn’t hamper it. You should learn something about a topic before opening your mouth.

      VA:F [1.6.5_908]
      Rating: 3.8/5 (4 votes cast)
  9. Terry Mulvihill says:

    The Internet does not need Government regulation. The FCC has four principles for Companies to follow.

    Also a company that invests in infrastructure should be able to manage that network. All internet traffic is not the same.

    The Internet is working very well today so why interfere.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  10. martha harris says:

    Thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss the internet. I hope the commission will continue to allow consumers to enjoy lowest prices, highest usage levels and many choices and vote to not regulate the internet.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  11. Steve Box says:

    We don’t need the FCC to step in and over-regulate something that is working pretty well like the Internet. Free communications is what the internet is about and it needs to be free/low cost to all those who have access. This is not like the financial crisis where speculative trading by powerful companies that had the ability to crash the system got out of bounds. Please use restraint in whatever, if any, regulation of this industry is implemented. Freedom of speech through the internet is what has transformed democracy around the world. Don’t mess with it.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  12. Patricia says:

    Having the ability to manage their networks, Broadband Network Companies can bring the great opportunity of affordable and efficient Broadband to the people who need it most. Government intervention is not the answer. Maybe we need to have the companies work with governments to find a solution that does not require regulation but encourages free enterprise. Our current telecom industry failed years ago due to intense regulation. We want to keep the innovation and bring new products to market. Ideas for the cell phone and Internet were around years before they entered the market, the reason they did not come to market sooner was because of the intense regulation out there. Let’s not lose what we have, Internet is Freedom.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 1.6/5 (29 votes cast)
  13. Lance Hurley says:

    I strongly urge the FCC to NOT impose additional regulations on the Internet. It is currently the greatest innovation in communication in my lifetime. Toy impose further regulations would only serve to impede the open communications currently found on the Net.

    Please do not impose more unnecessary regulation on this mediun.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  14. Sharon says:

    I do hope the government doesn’t step in and try to control our internet. I feel more and more like my freedoms are being taken away. This country doesn’t seem like the same country in which I grew up. It scares me!

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  15. Guest says:

    With great power, comes great responsibility. So before exercising your “free speech” by commenting on the blog, you should read up on some “free knowledge/info” on net neutrality.

    For starters, Wikipedia has an excellent page on the subject -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_the_United_States
    Ok..Now, if you disagree with the facts, don’t come crying back to me alleging that wikipedia is a vast left wing conspiracy.

    From what I understand, net neutrality actually encourages freedom of speech. If FCC is intent on suppressing free speech, why would they start off by welcoming your comments on this very blog !!

    Also, AT&T has complained to FCC about Google Voice violating “net neutrality” principles. The fact that they complained indicates that they believe that these principles are just and reasonable. But it seems they oppose it !! That is hypocrisy at its best.

    AT&T and Apple had, till recently, prevented 3G VOIP apps from running on my iPhone. Now that barrier has been removed, thanks to FCC’s intervention on Google Voice. I still cannot access 3G data from my laptop using iPhone’s tethering feature. I hope FCC’s net neutrality initiative will also force AT&T to open up free of charge internet tethering on the iPhone.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  16. Monty says:

    Since we have the best Internet in the world, why would the administration want to strangle it with regulation?

    Regulation such as you are proposing would disrupt a free-market that already provides the widest range of services, devices, lowest prices, and highest levels of usage in the world. Customers are already experiencing competition between wireless and broadband companies. As everyone should know, competition is the engine of innovation. There has been more innovation in this market than any other. Period.

    The “net neutrality” rules, as currently written, would strangle Network companies’ ability to provide customers with affordable broadband services. Private management of Networks is essential for customers to be able to enjoy many of the benefits they experience today.

    The administration’s stated goal of access to high- speed Internet service for every American is jeopardized by the suggested FCC rules. These rules will halt private investment and eliminate the opportunity for job growth in this field.

    The FCC shouldn’t burden any industry with unnecessary regulations.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  17. Guest says:

    When government gets involved in a free market system it will fail everytime.This will cause many people to lose their jobs,especially in a time where we need to be building up more.There is fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want. There’s been more innovation in this market than in any since the World Wide Web was introduced. The market is working for consumers. Don’t burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations.
    Regulations on the internet effects all of our freedom of speech. You may not agree with me, but isn’t great to live in a country where we can say so?

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  18. darling pleasant says:

    Network companies have to be able to manage their networks to ensure the most economical and efficient use of bandwidth, and provide affordable broadband services for all users. Network management is essential for consumers to enjoy the benefits of new quality-sensitive applications and services. The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network. At this time in our history when the goal is for every American citizen that wants internet access regardless of geography or economic status, enforcing“net Neutrality” would diminish the goal. Ultimately the goal wouldn’t be able to be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it. The FCC needs to only institute policies that would make the entire industry level. The rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  19. D. Denise Peterson says:

    The FCC’s main priority should be to level the playing field between internet content providers and internet carriers. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers. The “net neutrality” rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance. That goal can’t be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it. There is fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  20. Felicia Greene says:

    America’s wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. There is fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want. Network companies have to be able to manage their networks to ensure the most economical and efficient use of bandwidth, and provide affordable broadband services for all users. Network management is essential for consumers to enjoy the benefits of new quality-sensitive applications and services. The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network. The goal of the FCC should be to maintain a level playing field by treating all competitors the same. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  21. Imogene Harris says:

    Being a retired newsperson/small business owner prior to the advent of the internet, I find that the argument being discussed now is a bit late. In every other aspect of business, industry or communication there have been standards and rules of governance. Somehow the internet and the wireless industry have managed to exist for decades with minimal oversight. Without this intrusion the industry has been able to flourish and warrant increased competition and investment that otherwise would not exist.
    The news industry has been significantly changed since the advent of the World Wide Web. Several large papers have had to limit if not eliminate their services because the demand for instant news is greater than the demand for traditional print media. Being able to streamline information and share it with the greater community is largely the success of this industry. Being able to network systems together to communicate instantly across thousands of miles via the internet and its services is as dynamic as the advent of the fax machine.
    To increase regulations on this highly competitive industry would limit the ability of the private sector companies that would be investing in the future infrastructure of the internet. Stringent governance would equate to large fees and would limit investment. That does not equate to equal internet access for all regardless of geographic or economic standing.
    The marketplace works. This industry provides jobs and supports communities. For years the industry has self monitored. Allow it to continue to do so to insure a level playing field.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  22. Jose L. Madrigal says:

    This is a request for the FCC TO NOT regulate the Internet.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  23. Guest says:

    The Internet has thrived under the current regulatory principles. Burdensome regulatory requirments could potentially stifle future growth and discouraged investments in the Internet, which will limit the deployment of innovative technologies.

    I urge the FCC to devote its time and resources to fostering an environment that is supportive of efforts to expand broadband services to underserved areas, increase investments in the Internet, and to develop emerging technologies. This of which will position this country to compete in the global community.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  24. Glen P. says:

    This is a truly bad idea. Rich H. states that “the internet has succeeded because of its openness…” Exactly, government regulation of any kind will only stifle innovation and stifle the continued spread of the internet to all parts of the US.
    AOL is a great example of how service providers have failed because the market didn’t like their interference with accessing the internet. The consumer is much better at deciding what they want, so let the consumer make the choice.
    Why change what is “…the biggest success story of technology in history.” Any government regulations, no matter how good the intentions are, will only start the destruction of this important resource.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  25. Aaron B. says:

    It’s depressing to read a lot of these comments. The gov’t isn’t going to take over the internet What net neutrality will do is keep a level playing field for all those on the internet. The gov’t isn’t going to take over the internet. Many telco CEOs have openly said they support content discrimination on the web. Imagine, if you will, that a certain telco wants to launch a video service much like YouTube. They could slow down access to YouTube while givin the better connection to their own service and also censor the subject matter on their service. Things like this can and will happen if there is no net neutrality. What the FCC will do, if net neutrality passes, is keep the big telcos from screwing their customers. So yes…I support net neutrality and hope that I passes.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  26. Guest says:

    Net neutrality rules would kill thousands of jobs and halt investment in broadband infrastructure. How can President Obama possibly reach his goal of high speed Internet access for every American if the FCC kills any hope of return on investment? Was that just campaign “feel good”speak” and now the government is looking for another industry to regulate out of profitability? Leave one of the few things that is working alone!

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  27. Senior Citizen Guest says:

    Dear Mr. Genachowski:

    I take exception to your statement: “….Getting input from all stakeholders will be important….” The term “stakeholder” generally refers to someone who invests personal wealth in a free-market venture, with success or failure of that business determining the outcome of the risk taken. As a government agency, the FCC is supported by taxpayers, not free-market investors.

    Our freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Government regulation and CONTROL of the Internet is an infringement on that right.

    It is NOT the responsibility of the government, specifically the FCC, to guarantee or regulate access costs for Internet service to every person. Most people have CHOSEN to become dependent on electronic communication, but there is no right to a price determined by anyone other than the provider. While policy should be to assure no one is denied access generally available in an area, there can be no right or guarantee that everyone can afford it. It is NOT anyone’s right to have a subsidy for all of life’s conveniences.

    The taxpayers cannot support the expectations of the masses to have their wants subsidized. We senior citizens who grew up spending only what we could afford do not expect another taxpayer to pay for what we would LIKE to have but can’t pay for ourselves.

    I urge the FCC to vote no to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Net Neutrality.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  28. WangoT says:

    It is hard for me to understand why someone would want to open a yacht dealership in Wyoming. It’s not that people in Wyoming don’t like yachts. It just doesn’t make sense to do so. The market won’t bear a return on investment. Nothing against Wyoming, there just isn’t access to large bodies of water. Even if there was, there aren’t enough people to get a return on investment.

    The argument that everyone needs access also includes who is going to pay for it. If you want to live in the open plains, pay for it yourself. If you live in an area where others can not help pay for the cost to install it, move to somewhere where it makes sense to purchase the product. The only other solution is a “bail out” for those who can’t afford to off set the cost, nor the means to purchase a vehicle to use it. It doesn’t make sense.

    The internet is fine the way that it is. It doesn’t need a “bail out”. The market for Internet usage is booming. The innovation of devices and access has never been higher. It doesn’t need the government to fix it. Competition drives growth. Government intervention hasn’t help anything business enterprise. Govt. is for defense.

    The investment would have to come from taxes. Probably on usage. That is already where the revenue is generated, usage. Not a tax in addition to the way life already taxed. Competition and the free market is the only way to grow access.

    Content, this should also be left alone. There are many new businesses created through the internet and has made access to more produces at better prices, more information resources and many opinions that shouldn’t be hampered by government intervention. Let it alone.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  29. Guest says:

    Don’t be duped by all the AT&T employees here who are just here “following orders.”

    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139639/AT_T_accused_of_astroturfing_on_net_neutrality?taxonomyId=13&pageNumber=1

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  30. Fred says:

    Network neutrality regulations are adverse to innovation, investment and job growth. This is true in wireless networks, just as it is true in broadband policy. In each case, heavily regulating the operations of the Internet will damage the broadband progress in my state.

    President Obama has noted time and again the importance of infrastructure projects and other job creators. There’s no greater example of that than the fast-growing wireless industry, where many competitive companies are building out their networks to bring improved service to consumers.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  31. Brooke D. Beasley says:

    The government shouldn’t try to fix what’s not broken. Please don’t create problems with unnecessary regulations in a market that already works so well.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  32. dyoung says:

    First off, I would like to say that I love the openness with which the FCC is addressing this issue.

    I see a great deal of knee-jerk responses in the comments, and I intend to address the speech itself, the broadband plan, and network neutrality on the whole.

    The first chunk of the speech emphasizes the importance of the “internet” and the services we get from it. I would say the Chairman is spot on likening the internet to a common utility. I think that the internet- or access to it- IS a utility. It is not a luxury. Why are consumers having to pay luxury prices for a common utility?

    While the Chairman emphasizes that we cannot allow a single entity to control the internet and “pick the winners and losers”, I think that this “single entity” should include the telco/cable/mobile oligopolies. Yes you have your G-Mobile, your Comcast, and your AT&T- but these are not really choices any consumer has. A lucky consumer has one DSL provider and one cable provider to chose from. You can’t hop mobile providers easily due to lengthy contracts and hardware-locked handsets. These multiple companies are “last-mile” monopolies on the consumer’s access to the internet, and monopolies need to be regulated when they provide a utility.

    The Chairman gives some credit to the backbone providers for expanding our networking infrastructure, but I really disagree with this sentiment. Taxpayer funding started the internet (ARPA), and in the Clinton years, around $200 billion in taxpayer money/subsidies was granted to private telcos to upgrade the infrastructure. That money obviously went into profits and not infrastructure. The private companies naturally have profit at heart, and only begrudgingly update their infrastructure. In fact, they spend more effort in curtailing use of the internet (traffic blocking/throttling/inspection) than they do on increasing bandwidth. Again, the internet was funded largely by taxpayers- why should the companies be free from regulation?

    I think the Chairman really danced around the heart of the issue when he addressed the “limited competition among service providers”. It is obvious- when the internet was dial-up, you had numerous ISPs providing users access to the internet (at decent costs). This is because the “last mile” was a regulated utility (telephones). A consumer could dial whoever they wanted for their internet service (and at decent costs for the phone call, ever since the government applied “regulation” to Ma Bell). Imagine if the phoneline operators could block calls to competing ISP centers, and that you could only dial the telephone company’s network center for your ISP. It seems stupid right? Well, that is the state we are in now with broadband services. If your “last mile” provider is also your exclusive ISP, then you have no consumer choice, and no competition. The administration is going to have to buck up and demand openness in the “last mile” providers if the open internet is going to get anywhere.

    In general, I applaud also requiring network operators to be open with their network management decisions. The current state of false advertising with ISPs disgusts me.

    There are some who want “search engines” to pay their fair share. This is bunk. Google pays their internet service provider; you pay your internet service provider, then you exchange packets. Google’s ISP costs are obviously a lot higher than your ISP costs. Why should your ISP then get to charge Google? Should Google’s ISP charge you extra as well? This is just getting too complicated, and introducing this sort of pricing structure won’t benefit the consumers. Do you, as a consumer, think that allowing “double dipping” and “tiered pricing” is going to make your internet cost less? You will be paying the same as you are now- but you will be in the bottom tier. Don’t kid yourself into thinking you will be allowed to reduce your bill, because unregulated oligopolies don’t reduce bills.

    I won’t even bother addressing those people claiming “loss of free speech”- these policies seem to be guaranteeing free speech. For those of you claiming “this won’t let me manage my network! Why does that kid’s youtube is slowing down my VOIP connection?”, these issues are also addressed in the speech as non-issues. If your ISP is allowing one customer to overuse the network and block other customers, that is because they are inept at proper network management (which they could be doing right now) or they are overselling their infrastructure (very profitable).

    SUMMARY: The root problem facing network neutrality and broadband access is a lack of consumer choice. The “last mile” monopolies are the cause of this. “Free Market” won’t fix the situation while we have monopolies. Regulation for open (and at-cost) access to the “last mile” to promote competition amongst ISPs would do the most good for the nation by allowing the return of “mom-n-pop” ISPs (wow, local jobs!). With competition and an open network management reporting policy, consumers really can “vote with their dollars”. The principles proposed by the Chairman sound like they will ensure a good “level playing field” to define what “internet service” really means to consumers.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  33. Guest says:

    The internet does NOT need to be controlled by the Federal Government!!! Leave it alone Commrad!

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  34. Guest says:

    Will this evolve into another “fairness doctrin” for the Internet? So many proposals in the last few months have behind them the goal of limiting citizens’ free speech, particularly if it doesn’t agree with that which is politically correct at the moment. OpenInternet appears to be supportive of the open interchange of ideas, but citizens have become suspicious of the motivations behind new proposals with good reason. What will new regulations of the Internet lead to in actuality?

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  35. Russell Fowler says:

    I remember in my younger days reading a story about someone invented a transmitter that could send your voice over the air to a receiver. The Millitary thought that was a great invention and it should be for the millitary only. Where would we be today if that happen.
    There are a lot of good invention coming to light from the Millitary and the Civilians of this world. If it is a good invention it will be here until someone comes along and improve on it.
    If the Government gets their hands on it, then we we will be going back into the dark age.
    The Government is very good at slowing thing down.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  36. Chuck Surges says:

    Whatever happened to laissez faire?

    The last thing this country needs are more regulations and laws to control private business practices.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  37. Guest says:

    I am extremely opposed to any government involvement in the internet. Leave the internet and free speach alone!! Never before has the government felt the need to provide every technology that is invented as a right to all. The internet in accessable to all in many locations including libraries and schools.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  38. Jamal Washington says:

    1. The wireless community in this country is innovative and promotes competition, via prices, services and equipment, this offers choice. Why disrupt a good system?
    2. The competition that is in the community currently is what drives innovation for consumers. Regulations would only limit this creativity.
    3. Networking is an opportunity for all companies to manage efficient use of bandwidth. This provides life-changing, cost saving services like telemedicine. FCC rules should not hinder this ability.
    4. Net Neutrality will jeopardize the goals supported by the current administration, that every American has access to high speed internet services regardless of their economic or geographic standing. Instituting additional regulations will only limit private investment and eliminate countless jobs. Is this the economy do that?
    5. The internet should be regulated fairly if at all. All interested parties should be managed equally. The rules should apply to providers, search engines and information services providers as well.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  39. Guest says:

    If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. First Government Motors, Banks and now let’s get involved with taking over the internet? My thanks to the many over paid politicians who serve our country with their best needs in mind, however there is a time and place for stepping in and this is not the time nor the place. Stop crying that the very big companies that keep America going are expanding through the internet. Once again a proposal that is not fair across the board. This country was built on the very ideas the Government wants to squash. Start paying attention to real issues like how to better current policies and slash our deficeit without raising taxes and leave the internet alone.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  40. Hank WMI says:

    I don’t think that the current administration can regulate themselves in the bath room without costing the American people huge sums of tax dollars. The internet regulations would be no different. It will cost us. The Government needs to stay out of the internet business. Whether its net neutrality or giving the president the power to shut the internet down incase of some emergency, real or imagined. Keep big Governement out! The FCC must vote this down and WE THE PEOPLE need to use the internet and every other available source to let our friends and neighbors know what’s going on.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  41. Toni Dewitz says:

    The FCC shouldn’t burden an industry that is bringing jobs and investment to the country, but if it is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly. The goal of the FCC should be to maintain a level playing field by treating all competitors the same. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.
    This also ensures competition will be alive and well.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  42. Sonny says:

    I believe firmly that net neutrality should be a high priority of the FCC.

    All of the posts in this blog that talk about leaving the free market to dictate something like net neutrality are staggeringly blind. Since when did throttling bandwidth and prioritizing which data recieves faster transmission speeds become advantageous to us as consumers? Since when has letting mega-corporations like ATT act without appropriate protections for consumers been helpful? Having to pay an ISP for the ability to distribute content across their network (or prioritize transmission speed) is the antithesis of what makes the internet work. The internet levels the playing field. It allows the little guy to put his idea out there for a low cost, possibly reaching a wide audience. Yet, by forcing entrepeneurs or start-up companies to buy access to a user base, you’ve set up a caste system that will reward bigger companies with bigger pockets. Isn’t this the OPPOSITE of a free market? It’s stacking the deck and it will stifle innovation.

    I can’t grasp that in this day and age, given the abundance of horrific results cauesd by the amoral pursuit of profit by corporations, that any sane person would sanction their free reign over something as vital as the internet. Yes, government intervention is as graceful and precise as a 20-ton hammer, but it is still better than the ruthlessness of a corporate bottom line.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  43. Michael McDonald says:

    I am writing to tell you my thoughts about the FCC’s upcoming announcement on network neutrality. Heavily regulating wireless networks will increase the costs, and depress the investment necessary to continue the growth and availability of internet service.

    In my community, the Village of Leonard in Michigan, the rapid rise of the wireless market is a great success story. Nearly all residents and businesses have access to advanced wireless phones and networks, while the strong, competitive market keeps bringing new innovation. I attribute this success to the absence of government interference. Thus, it is imperative that the FCC retain the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that has built the robust wireless and online networks we have today.

    The FCC can take another step by avoiding network neutrality regulation of broadband deployment. Bringing broadband to all areas of the nation also requires investment in networks, well-paying local jobs and the technology needed for our cities and villages to grow new businesses that depend on communications. Placing more regulation will likely only dampen the investment of capital and resource to develop markets for the broadband services.

    I think we all agree that a fair and open Internet is important, but your proposed regulations on traditional and wireless broadband service will decrease or continue to make it impossible for many residents in and around my area to have the Internet, and further cost us jobs and investment. Don’t close the door to opportunity and jobs for people in Michigan with unnecessary new regulations.

    Building out networks means jobs, improved quality of life and the long-term infrastructure we need to build on our local economies. Thus, it is absolutely critical that the FCC does not impose network neutrality regulations.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  44. Guest says:

    I am sure you don’t consider the internet giant Google to be a corporate hack. Net neutrality is their primary mission. I am sure Google has nothing but the public’s interest in mind and it has nothing to do with money or their stock price.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  45. Guest says:

    Truly Mr. Genachowski, What is your ultimate goal? Please be frank.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  46. Guest says:

    The government needs to keep their grubby little hands off the internet, its none of their business. Anything they try to control they destroy….so stay away from my internet!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  47. Guest says:

    Why on earth would you want to regulate the internet? Due to the historical hands off approach, and perhaps only because of the hands off approach, the internet is the most explosive innovation of our time. I find the incorporation of wireless technologies in this new debate the most troubling. Where I live the only access I have is via wireless connection. If the goal is to provide everyone with broadband, high speed internet access the Commissions new approach is clearly controdictary. As evidence simply look at what Google is doing with GoogleVoice. I am in a dead zone simply because of my local carriers apparently high termination fees. What’s next, my high speed wireless internet connnection?

    “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  48. David Arkansas says:

    The Internet has evolved into a fine means of communication and information. Anyone in the US can learn to use it to the limits of their ability. No amount of government intrusion should be put in place to limit or tax its usage.

    The old saying:”If it ain’t borke, don’t fix it.” certainly applies here. The FCC should do nothing to limit the free exchange of commerce or speech in the Internet.

    Now, it the FCC wants to enable more people to have access to the Internet for education or other unrestricted purposes, then I would have no complaints.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  49. Elizabeth Tivnan says:

    The present players in Washington, D.C. are rapidly flushing our culture and country down the toilet. The founding fathers would be appalled at what is going on and the FCC (unelected employees of the federal government) have NO AUTHORITY to dictate who, what, when and how we give and receive our information!

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  50. Les Bird says:

    I am opposed to any involvement by the government regulating the internet. It will cost many jobs and have a negative inpact on our economy. I would like to see the government regulate their envolvement in business.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)