Net futility
After mulling it over for years the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) finally revealed an ‘order' setting out some ground-rules for net neutrality in the US. But a quick look at some of the comments around the webosphere , and even from some FCC member, suggests the regulator has dropped the ball on this one.
The objectors fall into two camps. Tech bloggers seem most annoyed by the decision not to apply the regulation to mobile broadband, while everyone else just thinks the FCC has acted misguidedly and beyond its remit and powers.
As with any quasi-legal rulings, even the press release for this one is pretty heavy going and, frankly, there's other stuff to write about. But a quick scan reveals the FCC said there should be rules about whether or not telco companies can prioritize some types of Internet traffic over others. However, it doesn't think mobile networks should be subject to the same supervision.
This ruling is suspiciously consistent with the proposal submitted to the FCC by Google and Verizon, which both apparently have an interest in keeping the mobile Internet free to prioritize traffic if it wants.
In fact the FCC openly admitted to being influenced by the apparent openness of Google's Android mobile OS in making this decision. It makes some good arguments about healthy competition in the mobile network market making regulation less necessary, and points out that more limited bandwidth makes it more important that providers are able to manage their networks.
"This puts greater pressure on the concept of ‘reasonable network management' for mobile providers, and creates additional challenges in applying a broader set of rules to mobile at this time." said the FCC statement. "Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android."
Some of the best objections have come from one of the FCC's own commissioners - Robert McDowell - who voted against the order. Here are some choice quotes from his official statement:
"The FCC is not Congress. We cannot make laws. Legislating is the sole domain of the directly elected representatives of the American people. Yet the majority [of the FCC committee] is determined to ignore the growing chorus of voices emanating from Capitol Hill in what appears to some as an obsessive quest to regulate at all costs.
"All of these extreme measures, defying the D.C. Circuit, Congress, and undermining the public comment process, have been deployed to deliver on a misguided campaign promise.
"Not only is today the winter solstice, the darkest day of the year, but it marks one of the darkest days in recent FCC history. I am disappointed in these ‘ends-justify-the-means' tactics and the doubts they have created about this agency. The FCC is capable of better. Today is not its finest hour.
"My dissent is based on four primary concerns:
1) Nothing is broken in the Internet access market that needs fixing;
2) The FCC does not have the legal authority to issue these rules;
3) The proposed rules are likely to cause irreparable harm; and
4) Existing law and Internet governance structures provide ample consumer protection in the event a systemic market failure occurs."
So this looks like it will be strongly contested and may well never become law. If that's the case you do have to wonder what the majority of the FCC committe thought they would achieve by issuing this ruling. The FCC links to the full statements don't seem to be working, but the Guardian has published some alternatives.
