Free Newsletter
FCC to propose new net neutrality rules
Julius Genachowski is set to make one of his first big moves as FCC chairman today with the introduction of a new set of net neutrality rules that will give users the right to get free and equal access to any bandwidth-intensive service. Industry sources say the new FCC rules, which will in effect prevent telecom giants AT&T, Verizon and cable MSO Comcast from being able to throttle or slow down specific Web sites, will pass today.
The new FCC rules will include a mandate that service providers will have to disclose how they manage their network traffic, or what it is called a "sixth principle" to the four previous rules that were created in 2005 for Internet operations. Genachowski will also unveil a "fifth principle" that would prevent service providers from discriminating against applications and services that traverse telecom, cable and wireless-based Internet networks.
Not surprisingly, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast refused to comment on the proposed rules. Net neutrality has been a sticky issue between the FCC and Comcast. The MSO is appealing a previous FCC action barring it from rate limiting Internet user's bandwidth consumption on its network.
Some industry groups, however, believe the rules will actually hinder and not help consumers. "We believe that this kind of regulation is unnecessary in the competitive wireless space as it would prevent carriers from managing their networks -- such as curtailing viruses and other harmful content -- to the benefit of their consumers," said Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA, the wireless industry's trade group in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.
If the rules are passed, customers of Google and other upstart application providers will be able to run their applications freely over any existing wireline or wireless broadband network or device. "Be they entrepreneurs or innovators or consumers or less powerful voices, a principle on transparency is about knowing how large carriers manage traffic on networks and understanding how their content will be treated ahead of time so no one is surprised," said a source at the agency in a Washington Post article.
For more:
- Washington Post has this article
- The Wall Street Journal also has this coverage
Related articles
FCC won't tolerate violations against net neutrality
What kind of FCC will this be?
Net neutrality roaring in under new FCC chairman
More stories about Net Neutrality Internet Networks Google Fcc Chairman Cable Mso Bandwidth Consumption
Comments
Posted by RobertH | September 25, 2009 - 9:18am
There would have to be provisions for time sensitive data, if not, then as stated already it will be a mess. The government manages nothing well and are not equiped to legislate/regulate in these markets. I would say to a app vendor/developer, if you want unencumbered bandwidth build your own fucking network, ass. This is unworkable as a model down to the end service provider. Another stupid government agenda driven by backend greed and a more for less attitude.
Posted by stel | September 22, 2009 - 12:57pm
you're completely wrong. this won't keep carriers from throttling the aggregate speed for the end user (or hosting customer) just as they do now. maybe they will shift to capping max speeds more but that's only because they won't be able to cheat some people out of what they sold them so that others see bigger burst speeds on occasion. upstream services such as google already pay big bucks to telcos to get their services online. they, and of course and more importantly small companies, deserve to know that when they pay for a pipe to the net, they're not throttled by anyone in the middle. this is better for the market and better for the consumer. the ONLY thing it's not good for are a few of the big carriers that are angling for a monopoly in their markets for multiple products (like rockefeller at the turn of the 20th century using ownership of railroads to create an oil monopoly - stopped by roosevelt and taft). this is the ONLY reason the carriers care. their whole story about network management is a lie.
Posted by stel | September 22, 2009 - 12:56pm
you're completely wrong. this won't keep carriers from throttling the aggregate speed for the end user (or hosting customer) just as they do now. maybe they will shift to capping max speeds more but that's only because they won't be able to cheat some people out of what they sold them so that others see bigger burst speeds on occasion. upstream services such as google already pay big bucks to telcos to get their services online. they, and of course and more importantly small companies, deserve to know that when they pay for a pipe to the net, they're not throttled by anyone in the middle. this is better for the market and better for the consumer. the ONLY thing it's not good for are a few of the big carriers that are angling for a monopoly in their markets for multiple products (like rockefeller at the turn of the 20th century using ownership of railroads to create an oil monopoly - stopped by roosevelt and taft). this is the ONLY reason the carriers care. their whole story about network management is a lie.
Posted by liebendk | September 21, 2009 - 1:19pm
Working for a carrier, this all SOUNDS good if your a consumer but all things come with a price, and a price tag. Unlimited bandwidth does not exist. Even with the best fiber backhaul in the world their are still limitations. And there are limitations to the capacity of a cell site, which all have COPPER backhaul at the moment. If one guy gets to run what ever he wants, and soaks up all the bandwidth, to bad so sad for the rest of the people wanting access, and as the networks exist today, that also competes with voice. So guess what, you wanted open access BUT it will have to be paid for. There won't be rate limits but networks will have to charge for excessive traffic, and the bills will be whoppers, which of course people won't want to pay, and when voice traffic hits those sites and drop........this is going to be a mess.
SHARE
WITH:
Comments (4) | Post a comment