The Federal Communications Commission voted three to two on Tuesday afternoon to approve a new set of rules governing the practices of broadband Internet service providers. The new policy bans discrimination by Internet companies of any specific online service. But does not go so far as to bar those from charging more money for faster service, leaving open the potential for a “tiered Internet” scenario.
The rules differ for “wired” and “wireless” Internet providers, as well; wireless companies are allowed to block certain apps and services so long as they are not in direct competition with their own products. Chairman Julius Genachowski says this differentiation is intended to encourage innovation and growth of wireless services, but that the commission would leave open the possibility of additional regulation in the future.
So is the new FCC policy good or bad for the American consumer? News readers will be forgiven if they frankly have no idea. The bombast and posturing surrounding the vote is so loud, and its details so foggy and arcane that it’s hard to make out what the “story” of the story is.
All the political equivocations don’t help (“We are not endorsing or approving practices that the rules do not prohibit,” says Genachowski, in an impenetrable triple negative). Nor does hair-splitting language like this (from an article in Broadcasting & Cable):
Commissioner Michael Copps’ plans to concur rather than approve the order, while Commissioner Mignon Clyburn will approve in part and concur in part. A concurrence is short of approval, but is still a yes vote.
Brian Stelter’s piece on the New York Times website, “F.C.C. Approves Net Rules and Braces For Fight” focuses on the legal challenges to this new policy (and the commission’s authority to make and enforce it) that will surely follow, as companies like Verizon squirm under the new rules, however watered-down those rules are. The Wall Street Journal headline directly following the vote takes a different tack, emphasizing that this is the most authority the government has ever exercised over the Internet: “FCC Gives Government Power to Regulate Web Traffic.”
NPR reporter Larry Abramson kept it short and sweet and just about right on Tuesday’s Morning Edition, ahead of the vote:
Consumer groups are already attacking the rule as ‘fake’ net neutrality. With many in Congress opposed to any regulation of the Internet, the rule may have few friends, and lots of enemies.
Wired plays up a different angle, with Ryan Singel’s piece on the Epicenter blog: that no one likes the new policy except for corporate interests:
The federal government’s new internet fairness policy — designed to prevent the nation’s cable and DSL internet service providers from meddling with the open, free-wheeling nature of the internet — was met with boisterous criticism Monday night from all sides of the political spectrum.
[ ]
There was one group, however, which seemed content with the new rules: the nation’s cable and telecommunications companies, including AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. They’ve been making the rounds in recent weeks signaling their support for Chairman Julius Genachowski’s compromise deal.
But to hear it from Politico, Republicans and corporations are both furious to cede a big win to Democrats, who are all for the new policy.
Adopting the Net neutrality order is a much-needed win for Genachowski, who has been trying to find a compromise on the divisive issue for the past two years.
[ ]
The White House will also likely claim victory. Although some stakeholders complain the FCC’s order goes either too far or not far enough, Genachowski and top Democrats say it represents progress on an issue that has been mired in political wrangling for years. President Barack Obama made Net neutrality a campaign promise, and the FCC’s action allows the administration to show advancement on an important policy priority.
And:
The order does not explicitly ban “pay for priority” or allowing carriers to charge an extra fee for faster service, but the FCC says it will assess such situations on a case-by-case basis. That strengthened standard is likely to frustrate big companies like AT&T and Verizon. The official text of the order will not be released for several days.

Rothman is so wrong with his comparison. The cable companies are often charged by the content providers (the cable channels) and they pass that cost on to people paying for cable. But the ISP cost is for providing the pipe and connection, we can pick from our content, much of which is free. If we want to pay for the WSJ on-line, we pay the WSJ for their content. If you want to stream Netflix, you pay Netflix for the content they have streamed.
I pay for the pipe, my ISP shouldn't differentiate speed based on what content I am seeking.
Note: I do understand based on hosting servers, that you can have differing load speeds, but that is based on the content provider speeds, not "traffic management" (aka extortion) of my ISP.
#1 Posted by End The Echo, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 03:13 PM
"The new policy bans discrimination by Internet companies of any specific online service."
In other words: The federal govt is again decimating competition in the market, thus further cartelizing industry.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 10:04 PM
See Jack Shafer's brilliant imagining of the fate of the Internet if the FCC had decided to start regulating it in 1993, in today's Slate. Another American industry headed for consolidation and stagnation after brilliant, unregulated growth.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 27 Dec 2010 at 12:41 PM
The whole internet was regulated by international consortiums and standards maintenance organizations such as
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/
http://www.isoc.org/standards/orgs.shtml
Icann and the rest. The idea of having a protocols allows people to use the best products based on compliance with the protocol. The reason why the internet is open is because it is regulated with open standards.
That hasn't stopped competitors (like Microsoft) from trying to proprietize the web and lock in their body of users to their products, but a well regulated marketplace allowed better products to survive and thrive based on their standards compliance. There's a reason why internet content proliferates on html, java, flash (somewhat unfortunately), and javascript and not active x. The previous technologies allowed a consumer to use them how they sought fit, they didn't care about the platform underneath (and now that flash is not compliant with the mobile platform, we will see how flash either changes or fades out).
pt2 l8r
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 27 Dec 2010 at 10:57 PM
Before it was the computer platform that was trying to lock users in, now its the network provider. Before it was an informal rule that providers care about a users usage and not where he spends his usage. Now they want to charge based on where you send your bits so they can tilt the marketplace and push the usage to their preferred vendors. Before cable companies got so brazen about how they want to control usage, we could be informal about it, but now they have monopolies in their markets and they want to change how the internet works.
The internet works worse in America than in Japan and Europe already because of a lack of government regulation on providers.
It's embarrassing:
http://www.techspot.com/news/41535-fcc-68-of-us-broadband-connections-arent-broadband.html
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23krugman.html
But yeah, that was a problem that didn't need critical regulation because it affected how fast the internet worked and how much it cost. It didn't affect how the internet worked.
This is different.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 27 Dec 2010 at 11:06 PM
See here:
http://theopeninter.net/
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 27 Dec 2010 at 11:11 PM
This article
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/the-cost-to-offer-the-worlds-fastest-broadband-20-per-home/
gives you a really good insight into why providers are pushing to change the internet and how they can bill for it.
The reason is that the internet is a communication medium and it's being provided by companies that specialize in other communication mediums (telephone, cable, cellular networks).
And where the user sees the internet as having an amazing power to communicate and consume media from across the world tailored to their tastes, the other communication mediums see it as threat to their core businesses.
Telephones companies already have to worry about google voice and skype eating their profitable long distance businesses; cable companies see bit torrent, itunes, and you tube slicing into their cable packages; if municipal wi-fi ever takes off, the cell phone companies will have to compete with iPods and iPads and Androids equipped with skype and line2.
The internet products they provide cannibalize the providers non-internet business.
You have to understand how these internet providers think in order to understand why they want to change how it works - and then you can say no.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 28 Dec 2010 at 06:48 PM