The GOP opposes net neutrality rules preventing major ISPs from discriminating against content providers and customers. Image: CC Camilo Sanchez/Wikimedia Commons

House Republicans voted to block new Federal Communications Commission net neutrality rules, calling them an example of an overreaching federal government. The FCC seeks to implement rules preventing Internet service providers from discriminating against content providers and customers via different fees and connection speeds. The House passed an amendment to a spending bill that would cut off money the FCC would spend to enforce net neutrality rules.

Net neutrality and the federal budget

In an attempt to keep the FCC from implementing new net neutrality rules, the Republican-controlled House approved an amendment to a budget bill needed to fund the federal government to the end of the 2011 fiscal year in June. The amendment to defund FCC net neutrality is one of the few means Republicans have to satisfy their constituents at companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon who control most U.S. Internet access. Political analysts doubt whether the net neutrality amendment, as well as other Republican measures to defund programs they don’t like, will survive the legislative process. But if the amendment becomes part of the budget bill needed to fund the government, it will be difficult for President Obama to veto.

Net neutrality becomes a political football

The FCC’s new net neutrality rules have strong support from Senate Democrats and President Obama. The rules passed the Democratic House in December, but Senate Republicans stalled the measure in anticipation of the GOP gaining control of the House in the new year. Senate Democrats, who still hold the majority, are adamant that they won’t address the Republican net neutrality defunding amendment. The current government funding bill expires at midnight on March 4. Congress must pass a new spending bill by then, or the federal government will be forced to shut down.

Net neutrality basics

New net neutrality rules are being considered because a few major companies control Internet access for most Americans. Some people suspect these companies of colluding with each other to keep rates high and the quality of service low. The FCC hopes to encourage more competition in the Internet service provider market by preventing major Internet service providers from charging websites for faster access and throttling Internet connections for content providers and customers who don’t pay extra.

Sources

Wall Street Journal

Politico

Daily Tech

Comcast and NBC will officially be merging. CC by 惟①刻¾/Flickr

In a move approved by the FCC, Comcast and NBC will likely be merging. This merger is being lauded by industry advocates. The Comcast/NBC merger is not all good, however. Consumer advocates are saying it may be a disaster.

The Comcast NBC merger information

Comcast made an announcement recently. About 51 percent of NBC will be taken over. Currently, NBC Universal is controlled by General Electric. Comcast is going to buy that stake for about $30 billion. There are a lot of people with a personal interest in Comcast right now. They include 23 million cable subscribers and 17 million internet subscribers. NBC Universal owns NBC, CNBC, Bravo, Oxygen, Universal Studios and 30 percent of Hulu. The Federal Communications Commission and Justice Department anti-trust unit have given approval for the purchase.

The good part of the Comcast/NBC merger

Conditions apply to the FCC approval of the Comcast/NBC merger. Comcast has promised to add 1,000 hours of informational and news programming. Low-income households can get internet through the company for only cost $9.95 a month. Specific regulations have also been put in place to help prevent the Comcast-controlled NBC from using its control to kill competitors in both internet and television programming arenas.

NBC Comcast merger cons

Though Comcast has promised to take action to prevent unfair competition, many consumer advocates are concerned about the merger. One statement by the FCC Commissioner who voted against the deal said, “concentration of media under Comcast’s control would put too much power into one company that controls the access consumers have.” There is also concern that the company will be able to put walls around content. There are more chances for abuse with vertical integration even though costs may be reduced. There isn’t any net neutrality regulation in place yet. That means the merger might be harder for the FCC to control than it believes.

Information from

NPR

Washington Post

Comcast could become your monopoly, regardless of whether you want it or not. (Photo Credit: CC BY-SA/bclinesmith/Flickr)

The merger of Comcast and NBC Universal has drawn criticism from numerous sources, centered on the potential threat that the mega-company could become a monopolistic gatekeeper of televised and online media. In theory, Julius Genachowski and the Federal Communications Commission support open competition, where no one company controls the flow of information. Thus, the FCC is currently in negotiations with Comcast to ensure that Comcast Corp. will not take control once the NBC Universal purchase is complete, reports the Associated Press.

Video competition: The battle for your eyeballs

Comcast is seeking to purchase majority share in NBC Universal from General Electric, a potential $13.8 billion deal that has U.S. broadcasters and consumer groups worried that media and video competition will sink beneath Comcast’s massive bloat. Genachowski and the FCC want to ensure that other broadcast media companies will still have room to compete for viewership. If broadcasting companies are squeezed out of being able to obtain the necessary programming to grow and compete, those companies will fail and further strengthen the front-runner.

The Comcast–NBC Universal merger, by the numbers

If Comcast’s purchase of NBC Universal is completed, Comcast will have control of an astronomical media network. All NBC and Telemundo networks; 26 local TV stations; a host of popular cable networks like CNBC, Bravo and Oxygen; Universal film studio and related amusement parks; and a significant stake in Hulu.com. As Comcast already is in control of cable channels like E! Entertainment, Versus and the Golf Channel – and has controlling interest in various Philadelphia pro sports teams and their corresponding cable networks – the mega-corporation’s already staggering reach would be off the scale. Comcast now has about 23 million On-Demand video subscribers and 17 million broadband Internet subscribers.

Imagine the loopholes

The recent net neutrality ruling by the FCC has left behind what many experts consider to be “too many loopholes” — space for telecommunications companies to throttle bandwidth and play favorites. That ignores the spirit of competition that the FCC claims it seeks to preserve.

Sources

Associated Press

Sen. Al Franken blasts Comcast-NBC merger

How net traffic is managed now has some rules - but just about everyone has a problem with the FCC Net Neutrality ideals. Image: Wikimedia Commons

In a long-awaited announcement today, the FCC approved net neutrality standards on a 3-2 vote. The six-pronged net neutrality rules were called “strong and balanced” by the FCC. Critics on both sides, however, have lambasted the rules, which will likely be argued next in court.

Six tenents to FCC net neutrality

Chairman of the FCC Julius Genachowski announced this morning that the Federal Communications Commission had approved a new set of net neutrality rules. These rules were the result of over seven years of debate. The six basic FCC rules of net neutrality are:

1. A right to know the basic performance characteristics of  Internet access and how their network is being managed.
2. A right to send and receive lawful traffic.
3. A right to a level playing field. No central authority, public or private, should have the power to pick winners and losers.
4. Broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks to deal with congestion, security, and other issues.
5. The principle of Internet openness applies to mobile broadband.  There is one Internet, and it must remain an open platform, however consumers and innovators access it.
6. Create an Open Internet Advisory Committee that will assist the Commission in monitoring the state of Internet openness and the effects of our rules.

Loopholes in net neutrality rules

Many critics have called the new FCC net neutrality rules “too full of loopholes.” The rules leave space open for mobile broadband to be “throttled” or limited, and call to simply “watch for abuse.” Consumer advocates are also saying that the rules are subject to easy manipulation, and without strong enforcement, they could very well be abused.

Republican criticism of net neutrality rules

Though consumer advocates are unhappy with the new rules approved by the FCC, the Republican leadership of Congress have also come out against the rules. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, released a statement saying that the net neutrality rules would “stifle innovation and entrepreneurship.” The statement also calls the new rules a “government takeover” that “puts bureaucrats in charge of the Internet.” Reports are that Verizon Wireless and other companies are considering tying up the FCC net neutrality rules in court.

Sources:

MacWorld
Official FCC Statement

The FCC votes Dec. 21 on a net neutrality proposal that allows ISPs to charge a premium for traveling in the Internet fast lane. Image: CC Mushroom and Rooster/Flickr

A proposal establishing rules on net neutrality will be voted on by the Federal Communications Commission on Dec. 21. At issue are pay to play rules giving Internet service providers the power to charge higher prices for more bandwidth. The FCC net neutrality vote seeks a middle ground that prevents outright blocking of content but recognizes the need to manage data-hogging video and peer-to-peer traffic.

The net neutrality battlefield

Currently the FCC has no authority to regulate the Internet. The net neutrality proposal will be used to present Internet regulation legislation to Congress. An explosion in video and P2P traffic, along with the proliferation of smartphones and networked tablet devices, has put a strain on available bandwidth. ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon support a pay-to-play system that allows them to control congestion by charging customers more for a so called “Internet fast lane.” With bandwidth demand exploding, ISP have already started charging content providers and throttling P2P traffic. The content providers say such a two-tiered Internet is unfair and should be illegal.

The FCC net neutrality proposal

The FCC proposes to prevent ISPs from manipulating “normal” traffic for Internet users, but allow them to implement “traffic management on P2P networks and levy fees on providers of bandwidth-intensive content such as Netflix. The FCC net neutrality proposal leaves wireless ISPs such as Verizon virtually unfettered to control bandwidth. Some analysts expect rising prices for faster mobile data access and pay-to-play rules that will be challenged by Internet stakeholders in court. On Dec. 10 more than 80 groups sent a letter to the FCC saying that the net neutrality proposal would harm consumers, stifle innovation and irreversibly end the free and open Internet.

A sneak peak at the end of net neutrality

Giant ISPs have already been planning how to exploit the FCC proposal. DailyTech reports that a presentation by suppliers to AT&T and Verizon was leaked outlining a two-tiered Internet. The strategy includes charging mobile data customers extra monthly fees per web page accessed and per MB consumed, plus YouTube, Facebook and Skype access fees. The presentation also recommends that ISPs create their own social network and video sites and offer their customers free access for choosing those instead.

Sources

Red Orbit

The Inquirer

DailyTech

Julius Genachowski believes the United States deserves net neutrality. (Photo Credit: Public Domain/FCC/Wikipedia)

From the sound of it, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski may have just signaled that a free and open Internet may be within reach. In a Huffington Post piece culled from his official FCC announcement, Genachowski states that a “milestone” has been reached in the fight for net neutrality. While the process is still at the proposal stage, the potential to see freedom of information on the World Wide Web in our lifetime appears closer than ever.

Net neutrality in a nutshell

Behind Julius Genachowski’s wide-ranging pronouncement lies the concept of net neutrality, which is deceptively simple. The basic idea is that quality broadband Internet connectivity should be available to all Americans at affordable prices. This high-speed connection to the Web should not be unreasonably throttled or otherwise controlled by government or telecommunications companies like Comcast. Furthermore, no sites should be granted bandwidth preference, which makes the path to one big telecom’s content a freshly paved, high-speed expressway while limiting the competition’s path to a bumpy dirt road.

‘Basic rules of the road’

In his statement, Julius Genachowski underscored the important role net neutrality would play in unfettered innovation, investment, job creation, individual expression and corporate competition. If the FCC’s open Internet measures are adopted later this month, here is what Americans can anticipate:

1. Freedom to access lawful content without filters. It is the FCC’s position that no individual, corporate entity or government should be allowed to restrict what Web content you view, so long as said content does not violate U.S. law.
2. Consumers have a right to know about their broadband service. This would include accurate, up-to-date information regarding said service so that potential users can make informed decisions before investing their dollars.
3. A level playing field. Consumers can express themselves and lawfully engage in commerce and innovation without permission or restriction. There will be no gatekeeper or favoritism when it comes to freedom of information.

Price hikes and roadblocks in cyberspace

When William Gibson first coined the term “cyberspace” in his seminal 1984 cyberpunk novel “Neuromancer,” he had no idea that corporate barbarians would soon fight in the real world to monetize the flow of information. Some might say that Julius Genachowski and the FCC are seeking to turn the tide in favor of freedom. Unreasonable prices and information filters cannot stand.

Sources

FCC.gov

Huffington Post

Julius Genachowski’s statement

A deal between Google and Verizon is an end-run around talks among Internet stakeholders that signals an end to the era of net neutrality. Geek and Poke illustration.

Net neutrality, the sacred rule of the Internet, says that no form of content is favored over any other. Big corporations with the power to control content want the age of net neutrality to come to an end. Google and Verizon, the 800-pound gorillas of the Internet, are in collusion to provide content to Internet users at higher speeds for a higher price. Net neutrality crusaders want the Federal Communications Commission to nix the Google/Verizon axis. But the FCC’s hands were tied in court last April by the Comcast decision saying the FCC has no authority to enforce net neutrality.

Net neutrality talks seek compromise

Net neutrality talks have been taking place with Internet stakeholders and FCC officials. Internet stakeholders include Google, Verizon, AT&T, Skype, cable companies and the Open Internet Coalition. The New York Times reports the discussions involve the FCC’s legal authority to regulate Internet service. Cable and telephone companies want to place a premium on higher bandwidth. Wireless companies want no regulation whatsoever on wireless broadband. Content providers want no favoritism on the Internet. The FCC wants a level playing field, but because of the FCC Comcast decision, it cannot impose one as long as its authority is in legal doubt.

Google and Verizon going rogue

As net neutrality talks with Internet stakeholders and the FCC dragged on, Google and Verizon eloped to make a deal. Bloomberg reports that Google and Verizon are former net neutrality adversaries. Verizon wants free reign to charge more for higher speeds to make as much money as it can get away with. Google has wanted regulations to prevent companies like Verizon from offering content from partners that pay for higher speed. Now, Google may have figured that the era of net neutrality is already over. Making a deal with Verizon could give Google the advantage when the corporate feeding frenzy begins.

Stage set for corporate takeover

A Google-Verizon deal alarms consumer advocates, who say it starts a trend that gives a few mega-corporations control over what has been a free and open web where consumers decide which companies succeed. Save the Internet paints a nightmare scenario where Google products get priority based on commercial deals. Chrome would work better than other browsers. Google Buzz would work better than Twitter. YouTube would get more bandwidth than competing video sites. Google’s Blogger would get special treatment over WordPress. Google’s GChat would work better than Sykpe … and the list goes on.

Google/Verizon winners and losers

The Google/Verizon deal may lead to an Internet where there are winners and losers among media giants, telecom firms and Internet users, according to the Wall Street Journal. It is inevitable that content will be prioritized on the Internet into different streams. There will be higher charges for faster, prioritized content. The Internet service providers will wrest control of the web from the FCC. Big media corporations will squeeze out the competition that keeps them honest. Surfing the Internet will become like trying to find something that isn’t total garbage to watch on cable television.

The only thing standing in the way is the FCC and the courts.

The FCC has proposed a Third Way for net neutrality that shields broadband companies from full telecommunications regulation but prevents them from charging customers the way cell phone companies do. Flickr photo.

Net neutrality, in a nutshell is fast, open, equal and affordable Internet access to all Americans. Some broadband providers have proposed to start charging more to their customers for higher levels of service, much like cell phone companies. The Federal Communications Commission started an uproar in the net neutrality debate on Thursday when it announced that it will seek public comment on imposing new regulations on Internet service providers to keep them from offering tiered service. Meanwhile, there’s an effort on Capitol Hill to define more clearly the FCC’s authority. But the FCC doesn’t want to wait for Congress to get around to it before it regains control of the net neutrality issue

FCC net neutrality

Consumer groups and free speech advocate groups such as savetheinternet.com are in favor of net neutrality. Internet service providers and free market advocates are against it. Until last week the two proposed versions of net neutrality legislation would prohibit: (1) the “tiering” of broadband through sale of voice- or video-oriented Quality of Service packages; and (2) content- or service-sensitive blocking or censorship on the part of broadband carriers. Last week, the FCC released what is called the “Third Way” plan.

Net neutrality: The Third Way

Net neutrality under the third way, according to the Washington Post, is this: Currently, broadband is defined as an information service, which means it doesn’t face much FCC oversight. The new plan is to shift broadband into the same classification as telephone service, which would trigger more oversight by the agency. The FCC says it would not subject Internet service providers to the full brunt of regulation that would come with the new classification.

Comcast net neutrality case

The FCC’s Third Way is an effort to regain control of the net neutrality issue in response to a Federal Court decision in April that overturned a 2008 FCC ruling in the Comcast net neutrality case. In 2007, Comcast was found to be blocking or severely delaying BitTorrent uploads on their network, claiming that downloading huge amounts of data was clogging the network. In August 2008, the FCC ruled that Comcast broke the law when it throttled the bandwidth available to certain customers for video files in order to make sure that other customers had adequate bandwidth.

Time Warner net neutrality challenge

In a 2009 test of the net neutrality issue,Time Warner Cable announced its intention offer broadband packages in 10GB, 20GB, 40GB and 60GB increments. The plans included overage charges of $1 per GB, capped at $75. Time Warner launched the pricing system in several markets to much public outcry. Later the company announced that it would offer larger packages but public discontent remained. They were eventually forced to abandon the Time Warner net neutrality challenge altogether.

Net neutrality supporters

The FCC voted Thursday to start the controversial process of reclassifying high-speed Internet access to give the agency authority over service providers that would prevent disparate treatment of customers. The Channel Web reports that last week, a group of 13 companies including Amazon, Google  and Sony sent the FCC a letter in support of the Third Way saying that it will ensure that consumers have access to an open Internet, one that would preserve a level playing field for all participants. The net neutrality supporters said the Third Way does so without regulating the Internet but by applying basic rules of the road to the transmission services that provide access to the Internet.

Against net neutrality

Republicans in Congress are adamantly against net neutrality any which way. The Los Angeles Times reports that Republicans offer the familiar argument that the Third Way is more government meddling in a free market that will stunt innovation and investment, echoing their Internet-service provider patrons. Texas Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchison speaking out against net neutrality said the agency has created “new burdensome regulations that threaten to stifle the growth of America’s broadband services.”

Google net neutrality letter

But Google cheered the FCC’s decision. “As we have said before, broadband infrastructure is too important to be left outside of any oversight,” the company said on The Official Google Blog. Massachusetts Democratic senator Edward J. Markey applauded the FCC’s move, calling it a “light-touch regulatory proposal” that would ensure “continued innovation, consumer protection and certainty in the broadband marketplace.”

Net Neutrality is the idea that all legal internet traffic should be treated equally. Image from Flickr.

Net Neutrality is the idea that all legal internet traffic should be treated equally. The concept of net neutrality seems simple enough, but a recent ruling by a Federal appeals court puts the FCC’s ability to protect net neutrality in question: Can the Federal government  protect net neutrality, or will internet service providers be able to determine which payday loans online web sites users can visit?

Net neutrality ruling strikes down FCC action

The net neutrality case that the Federal appeals court just ruled on is Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 08-1291. In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission sanctioned Comcast Corporation for deliberately slowing internet traffic. Many users, some trying to apply for payday loans no fax, complained to the FCC about the slowdown. The FCC claimed that by slowing internet speeds for high-volume users, Comcast was preventing access. Comcast sued the FCC with the argument that the FCC was stepping over the legal authority given it by congress. The Federal appeals court ruled in Comcast’s favor on April 6.

The legal framework of net neutrality

Currently, net neutrality does not have an enforcement framework in the United States. The Federal Communications Commission does have the legal authority to regulate telecommunications services, which the commission refers to as “Title II” services. However, broadband internet service is currently classified as a “Title I” information service. While President Obama and Congress have discussed creating a new legal framework to protect net neutrality, no specific legislation is currently under consideration.

Arguments against net neutrality

Currently, most large providers are warning the FCC that reclassifying broadband service as Title II would be a “very bad idea.” Threatening years of legal challenges, providers such as Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are speaking out very loudly against net neutrality protections. The basic argument of these service providers is that the government has no business regulating their network management. Each internet service provider is saying that net neutrality actions would illegally violate their right to manage their businesses as they see fit.

How can the FCC protect net neutrality?

The FCC, as well as the Federal government, puts quite a bit of stock in the concept of net neutrality. The National Broadband plan rests heavily on a neutral internet. At this point, the FCC has three options. First, it can classify broadband service as a Title II service. Second, it can ask Congress to present a legal framework for net neutrality. Finally, the FCC can appeal the net neutrality decision handed down today to the Supreme Court.

Sources:

Computer World
Wall Street Journal

Internet cafes provide the majority of internet access on Mainland China. Image from Flickr.

As of 3:03 p.m. Eastern time today, Google has officially shut down Google.cn search operations, ending the online loans of information that Google and China had worked out. Google and China have been in a long-standing debate over the censoring of search results — a debate that has gotten especially heated since Jan. 12. Today, on its official blog, Google announced that had cut the cord to Google.cn and would be redirecting all searches in China to Google.com.hk, the Hong Kong portal for the search engine.

Availability of Google in China

Along with redirecting the Google.cn portal to Google.com.hk, Google also launched an “Apps Status Dashboard” report on China. According to that dashboard, as of 2:15 p.m. Pacific time today, Google users in China are able to access the web and image search functions freely, without censorship. News, advertisements, and Gmail also appear to be freely accessible. However, YouTube, Google Sites, and Blogger are completely blocked, while Google Groups, Picasa, and Google Docs have a small loan from the government – they are only partially blocked.

China’s unique relationship with Hong Kong

Google’s decision to redirect Google.cn to Google.com.hk is a decision made partially possible by the unique relationship of mainland China with Hong Kong. Google has long had a non-censored presence in Hong Kong, even though it is a “special administrative region” of the Republic of China. Hong Kong is technically Chinese, though it is operated as a multi-party democratic republic, rather than under the single-party system of China. Because Hong Kong is financially and politically separate from China, Google has been able to offer a full suite of web services there for many years.

How China’s government will react to Google

Senior Vice President David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, stated today that “We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services.” Most industry and political watchers do expect China to begin censoring search results from Google.com.hk any day. The Chinese government has a long history of censorship, and China’s “Great Firewall” is surprisingly effective at censoring sections of the internet that the Chinese government determines should not be allowed.

Google is the best-known name in search in most of the world - but Google's China operations will be shutting down. Image from Flickr.

Google is the nearly indisputable king of internet searches; last month alone, it claimed 72.11 percent of all searches in the U.S., according to HitWise. It makes sense, then, that Google would be trying to break into China, where the number of internet users exceeds the entire population of the U.S., according to the McKinsey Quarterly. Google initially censored many search results in order to comply with the government in China – blocking results about democracy, pay day loans, and Tienanmen Square. However, it appears that Google and China have reached an impasse in negotiations about censorship, and google.cn, the Chinese-based portal for Google will be shutting down.

Google’s China-based search

Google.cn, the Google China web site, started in 2005. Originally, Google had agreed to censor search results in China to meet with the Chinese government’s requirements. Google took some very heated opposition to this move, but the proposition of getting their “foot in the door” to the very large Chinese market encouraged Google to work with the requirements of the government in China. There were some that accused Google, a very public supporter of net neutrality of putting their principles on the back shelf by agreeing to censor their results. Like short term loans for bad credit, Google was willing to take out some search results in order to get things on track.

The disagreement between Google and China

After the initial anger about Google censoring its search results to meet with China’s government regulations died down, things remained fairly quiet until January of this year. On Jan. 12, Google announced a “New approach to China.” This move came as the result of cyber attacks not only on Google, but on the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists and advocates. At that point, Google announced that it would no longer be censoring search results in China. The government in China, as reported by the BBC agreed to talks with Google about censoring practices. However, the New York Times reports that those talks appear to have broken down. Nicole Wong, Google’s Vice President outlined in a statement:

“We are no longer willing to censor our search results in China, and we are currently reviewing our options. If the option is that we’ll shutter our .cn operation and leave the country, we are prepared to do that.

China has gone so far as to warn Google partners in China that they need to find “alternatives” to their Google search boxes.

History of internet censorship in China

The government in China, for the most part, appears to be very unconcerned about Google’s decision to remove its censored search engine. This is, in part, because China has a fairly well-developed system of internet censorship that they have been monitoring and using for years. Known as the “great Firewall,” there is a massive no-access blockage to many web sites available online.

Many popular web sites, such as YouTube and Wikipedia, are also heavily restricted based on certain topics. China also requires internet users to provide personal information to log onto the internet in Internet cafes, where most internet users in China log on. This massive effort of information control is known as the “Golden Shield Project.” Many U.S. companies, such as Google, have altered the way they do business in China in order to work with their huge population and growing economic power.

What Google will do with China

Now that Google is “most likely” shutting down its Google.cn operations, internet users in China will most likely not be able to access Google.com. Though they will be effectively cutting themselves out of a very large market, Google’s handling of the government in China is just the latest of a long string of U.S. Companies clashing with the Chinese government. Google has stated that it hopes users in China will continue to use Google.com, though in reality, Google will most likely lose the market share available in China.