Is net neutrality really dead? Here are some of the top questions about the FCC's plan, and what we know so far...
- BY CHLOE ALBANESIUS
- APRIL 24, 2014 03:40PM EST
The Internet exploded last night after it was announced that the FCC was considering a new set of net neutrality rules that would let broadband providers negotiate individual deals with content providers.
Reaction was swift. Net neutrality is dead! The Internet is forever changed! The FCC is corrupt! But is that true? Here are some of the top questions about what the FCC is proposing, and what we know so far.
So net neutrality as we know it is dead, huh? Not exactly. The FCC has issued what is called a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPM), which is a fancy way of saying a rough draft. Nothing has actually been implemented.
What happens next? FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has handed over his ideas to his fellow commissioners so they have time to look it over before voting on them at their May 15 meeting. But then it opens up to public comment, and could change form before anything becomes final.
What's in that rough draft? According to a blog post from Wheeler this morning, the proposed rules keep "the underlying goals of transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination among users" that the FCC's original net neutrality rules imposed. The new rules, however, create a "roadmap [for] how to enforce rules of the road that protect an Open Internet."
Translation, please? The FCC's rules were struck down by an appeals court, so the FCC needs to go back to the drawing board and find something that works. According to Wheeler, the court said that the FCC can stop activity that is not "commercially reasonable," so the FCC is running with that. But what actually counts as commercially reasonable? Well, that still needs to be decided.
And if something is commercially unreasonable? The FCC could stop it.
How would the FCC be alerted to commercially unreasonable behavior?Someone could file a formal complaint or an informal complaint, or the FCC could unearth it in its general monitoring of the industry.
OK, so what's the problem? The first report about the FCC rules came from theWall Street Journal, which said that "broadband providers [could] charge companies a premium for access to their fastest lanes." And that is basically the complete antithesis of what net neutrality stands for.
How does the FCC explain that one? Again, nothing is set in stone, but from what the agency is saying, companies are free to enter into certain arrangements, but they shouldn't press their luck because if the FCC deems it to be "commercially unreasonable," it can step in and make them stop it.
What type of deal would a broadband provider be allowed to broker? An FCC official had only one example of when it might be OK to prioritize traffic: a prioritized connection to someone with an at-home heart-rate monitor that didn't significantly impact Internet traffic to anyone else. Further examples will likely come up during the rulemaking process, that official said, but the FCC will consider whether there is a benefit to prioritizing traffic in certain situations.
Er, the use of the word 'prioritizing' just makes it sound bad, though. Shhh, go back to sleep.
Why change anything? Fight the power! At this point, the FCC has been sued twice over its net neutrality rules and lost both times. As a result, the commission needs to come up with something that withstands a legal challenge. And this is what they've got so far.
Am I going to see price hikes? The FCC couldn't answer that one.
Are wireless carriers involved in this? Not really. The original net neutrality rules applied loosely to wireless carriers (transparency and no blocking). But the anti-discrimination bit - which is the most controversial aspect of this overhaul - does not cover wireless providers.
How does this relate to the deal Netflix struck with Comcast? The inter-connection deal that Comcast and Netflix announced recently covers Netflix traffic traveling over the Comcast network, and basically gives Comcast customers a better Netflix experience (65 percent better, apparently). According to an FCC official, the net neutrality rules cover a broadband provider's operation of its own network and doesn't extend to things like peering. Adding that would likely complicate - and prolong - the issue, so one thing at a time.
What about re-classifying broadband? Speaking of things that would prolong the debate, there has been discussion about classifying broadband as a telecom service rather than an information service in order to give the FCC more control over the industry. Classifying broadband as a telecom service instead of an information service would be an easy way to do that–in theory. But the road to classifying Internet as an information service went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2005 via the Brand X case, so reversing that decision would probably prompt a lengthy legal and political battle. According to the FCC, though, reclassification isn't completely off the title, so feel free to bring that up when you file public comments. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment