McLaughlin, a major supporter of net neutrality rules, made the comment in a telecom law conference last Thursday by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln law school. Reaction was swift from AT&T's chief lobbyist, Jim Cicconi:

"It is deeply disturbing when someone in a position of authority, like Mr. McLaughlin, is so intent on advancing his argument for regulation that he equates the outright censorship decisions of a communist government to the network congestion decisions of an American ISP. There is no valid comparison, and it's frankly an affront to suggest otherwise," Cicconi said.

Maybe so, but it's a slippery slope. At any rate, the bottom line is that ISPs are going to end up screwing us one way or another—either with some sort of tiered internet, or pricey data caps. [Washington Post]

The FCC, being all about neutrality nowadays, is probably still going to flick Google in the balls over it, though Google says they "have good reason to believe [those numbers] are engaged in…schemes" that jack up carrier costs.

Given that Google's clearly happy to give something away for free that costs a lot of money to make happen, would they really even consider charging Google Voice like they vaguely threatened? Nahhh. [Washington Post, WSJ]

And before you dismiss the chart outright, check out your cable company's channel packages. Replace content provider fees with new network backbone charges, and cable packages with traffic or website packages, and hey, look, shit—this doesn't seem so crazy, does it? Click here for the full version. [Reddit via Crunchgear]

We've mentioned the FCC's plan to speed up new cell tower rollouts to get more 4G goodness in the air, and now they may shift a portion of the spectrum set aside for digital TV to wireless companies to help create more bandwidth.

Of course, broadcasters don't like the idea, and if you're happy with free over-the-air digital TV, you may not either. But it's clear that something needs to be done.

This latest idea is being considered as part of the larger U.S. national broadband plan, which is set to be made public in February. It's not yet known if the TV spectrum proposal will make into the final plan. [Wall Street Journal]

He's introduced the "Internet Freedom Act", which would block the FCC's rulemaking process. He says the rules would create "onerous federal regulation", and constitute a "government takeover" that would stifle innovation.

"Today I'm pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation," McCain said. "It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."

I'm trying to keep politics out of this, but apparently his view of "Internet Freedom" refers to big business freedom, not Joe public (or Joe the plummer). It's strange, because I always thought that thriving competition was the best way to boost jobs and protect us consumers. Apparently not.

Lest we forget: Mac or PC? "Neither, I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get." His words, not mine. Even if you don't agree with the FCC, is this really the right guy to oppose them? [Computerworld]

We fully appreciate that Chairman Genachowski and all Commissioners have approached a difficult set of issues in a constructive way. The Commission has provided a fair and transparent process to comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) adopted today, and we will participate fully in helping the Commission develop a record on these issues. To be clear, we regard this as a debate about means, not ends; we support a free and open Internet. However, we continue to believe the broadband marketplace is an unparalleled American success story and already offers consumers an open Internet experience. So, we welcome the opportunity to make our case that investment, innovation and consumer welfare are all enhanced by continued government restraint. Given the tremendously high stakes, we hope the Commission will approach these issues with a healthy skepticism of hypothetical harms, and with a full understanding of the very real consequences that regulatory action may have on investment, job creation, and the continued expansion and improvement of next generation networks.

We appreciate it! It's fair, and transparent! We supports a free and open internet! But hey, by the way, we hope the commission guts this proposal until it bleeds out, because it's dumb. Get that?

The event is still happening, but they got right to the meat. Here are the proposed guidelines—the first four are old, drawn from a nonbinding policy statement the FCC made regarding net neutrality in 2005, and the latter two, the ones that matter, are new:

Under the draft rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not:

1) prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user's choice over the Internet;

2) prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user's choice;

3) prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user's choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;

4) deprive any of its users of the user's entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.

5) A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

6) A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

Now, this is just a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, so it's not yet an actual, binding rule; this is the stage where the FCC seeks public comment on their proposal, after which they adjust (or not!) accordingly. The draft proposal, which Chairman Julius Genachowski and co. are universally expected to follow through on, would be open to scrutiny until January 14th. The biggest issue up for debate, aside from the core principles, is how to apply them.

The Notice will seek comment and input on these principles and their affect on internet services. With the tremendous growth of mobile and wireless broadband enabled devices, there will be a large question concerning the application of these principles to those devices.

That's the literal billion dollar question, which, rest assured, armies of lobbyists have a ready answer for.

What's important, though, is that this is what they intend to do, which is fantastic for net neutrality proponents, if not, you know, objectively fantastic—an open internet means no tiered service, sure, but the possible data caps and metered bandwith—two ways telcos and ISPs can recoup heavy users' bandwidth costs in the near-term—probably wouldn't be too popular either.

UPDATE: The five commissioners have now voted on the NPRM; here's how it shook out:

FCC votes on Open Internet NPRM: Genachowski, Clyburn & Copps in favor. Baker & McDowell dissent in part, concur in part

If I've got my procedural rulemaking protocols right (this is the iffiest of ifs, by the way), that means the process is going forward. Mazel tov, FCC.

UPDATE 2: Ars has a skeptical piece up about the vagueness of some of the proposed rules, specifically the definition of "reasonable network management processes" as it concerns rule six. It's fascinating, but presumably exactly the kind of thing that'll be publicly discussed during the vetting process. [FCC]

Seidenberg's points are sometimes fair, though often seem feeble. Net neutrality would bar providers from granting faster access to whomever they please, and Seidenberg suggests this will slow the transfer of, say, medical records. Mostly, though, he seems concerned with Verizon's profit margin if tiered service is banned, saying that will take away Verizon's ability "to make a return on their investment." The legislation, despite protests, is likely to pass, given that the five-person committee is controlled by pro-net-neutrality Democrats. Seidenberg really goes to town on the FCC, claiming they're favoring application providers like Google (who, along with companies like Amazon and Facebook, has voiced support for net neutrality) rather than service providers like Verizon and Comcast.

Check back tomorrow to see more coverage of this topic. [CNET, image also CNET]

Update: AT&T says that the letter was sent to "U.S. managers only" and that they "were providing important information to our employees, and it was up to them to respond personally. If they use their company email that is fine, too."

Specifically, he tells employees how to register to post comments on the FCC's net neutrality site using their "personal" email accounts, so it doesn't look like they're from AT&T shills, and lays out talking points for them to use, like "competition in the wireless industry is strong" and, hmmmmm, "the rules should apply to more than just network operators and should also include Web content companies like search engines." They're really pulling out all the stops, aren't they? Which should show you how truly scared they are of the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules.

If you want to comment in favor of net neutrality (or, um, not I suppose) to counter the lobbyist scum quotient, you can direct your comments here until Thursday. In the meantime, the FCC's busy tweaking the proposal, in particular the sections about network management—which is obviously what the carriers are most concerned about. [Washington Post]

A brief recap: Google Voice doesn't allow calls to some rural numbers, sexy talk lines or conference call services because the access and termination fees to them are pricey. AT&T has oh-so-kindly asked the FCC to investigate them for not following net neutrality rules (hilarious, since AT&T is quite pissy about the FCC's serious desire to apply them to mobile broadband networks), largely because AT&T got smacked for doing the same thing back in 2007. The FCC these days, headed by Mr. Neutrality Julian Genaschowski, is all about investigating stuff, so they're dutifully asking Google WTF is up with that.

Google says they're not providing a phone service like AT&T, but a free software/web service that's a supplement to your phone, emphasis on the free part:

Google Voice is a free application and we want to keep it that way for all our users — which we could not afford to do if we paid these ludicrously high charges.

Given that Google Voice isn't even a VoIP service and runs on top of your actual phone service—not to mention, is invite-only—they sorta have a point. Plus, um, free is good. [Google Policy Blog via Ars]

The FCC's interested in part because some lawmakers jumped on its ass, but also because it's very interested in making some new rules for telecoms. Currently, Google Voice blocks calls to some rural carriers, conference call services and naughty talk lines because they have pricey access fees.

You can read the full letter here (PeeDeeEff), but basically the FCC asks Google to describe how calls are routed with Google Voice, how it decides what numbers to block, what exactly Google means by saying the service is "invitation-only," whether or not it plans to charge money for GV (!), and some other stuff.

Google insists Google Voice is software, not subject to common carrier laws. We'll see, the new FCC is mighty feisty. [FCC (PDF via Bits]

A quick refresher: Net neutrality is, simply, the principle that all data gets treated the same by an ISP or service, whether it's incoming email or HD videos of dudes getting socked in the nuts by a 4-year-old on YouTube. A real-world example of very non-neutral behavior would be what got Comcast slapped by the FCC: specifically sabotaging torrents.

Theoretically, this could go beyond policing piracy, for instance if, say, Time Warner competitively blocked or slowed down Hulu, or if Verizon struck a deal with Google to give its data priority over traffic from Bing, so people using Google would get a way better experience than people using Bing. Streaming video is a not-so-coincidental theoretical example, since the explosion of video traffic is what the ISPs say is swallowing up all of the internet.

The end result of the threat of government-mandated net neutrality regulations for ISPs was a mixed "win" for consumers: AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner all responded with monthly data caps on their internet service in at least some of their markets. (Comcast limited it in all markets.)

As for the FCC telling ISPs to be more explicit about network management practices, Comcast started straight-up telling people heavy internet users would have their entire connections slowed down. While they suck for consumers, these are all "net neutral" practices, since no particular kind of data is discriminated against. The net neutrality debate fizzled down, though in some ways people were worse off than before.

With a new president, comes a new FCC chair, Julian Genachowski. Unlike his predecessor, who regularly reamed the cable industry but was a little too snuggly with the telecoms and against "hard and fast" net-neutrality rules, Genachowski is all about rules for everybody. Including the wireless carriers.

As you're probably well aware, mobile broadband is treated way differently than the internet that's piped into your house. It's considered fragile. There's far less of it to go around, with a less developed infrastructure and limited wireless spectrum to use. The rules for using it are tighter, like dating a nun. Restrictions abound, like no p2p. You don't want the network to break, after all. That's why, for instance, AT&T previously blocked Skype and SlingPlayer from running on 3G on the iPhone—and continues to block Sling—and why Apple rejects every torrent app that even tries to cross into the App Store.

In the past weeks, Genachowski has made it clear that he thinks that should change, that openness should "apply to the Internet however accessed." He's not saying they shouldn't be able to manage the network to make sure it runs smoothly, to be clear. But if you were scratching your head about why AT&T conceded and opened their network up to VoIP on the iPhone, look no further than this nugget from Genachowski, from a speech he gave three weeks ago:

We've already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet's historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks)..."

AT&T very much does not want the government to tell it how to run its networks, particularly the mobile one. AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega this week responded pretty clearly to the FCC's plans:

"Before we begin ‘fixing' what isn't broken, we need to be thoughtful about the consequences. We believe the marketplace today is vibrant, and there is no need to burden the mobile Internet with onerous new regulations."

So what's going to happen?

Well, the FCC is clear about what it thinks. This week, at a wireless telecom conference, Genachowski reiterated that net neutrality should apply to mobile broadband too. If those regulations pass, we'll likely see the same thing we saw with the landline providers: Caps (not just on 3G cards like there are now) and "transparent" network management. Goodbye unlimited mobile broadband like the iPhone has. You will pay for every ounce of data that you use. And if you're "crowding" the network by downloading a bunch of stuff, you're gonna get slowed down because that's the easy "net neutral" way to keep users in check. How much better is that, really?

So iPhone users, enjoy your "unlimited" wireless connections now. Pay-per-byte data—for both wired and wireless broadband networks—may well be the road we're going down. Verizon is the last major landline broadband provider who has held back from capping or throttling its services (looove my FiOS), but even its CTO says that eventually, "we are going to reach a point where we will sell packages of bytes."

Hopefully those packages will come cheap.

PCWorld caught Ralph de la Vega making a few, um, intimations at CTIA yesterday. First, a setup, in which he describes an actual problem:

He cited AT&T research showing that just 3 percent of AT&T's smartphone customers use 40 percent of all smartphone data

So, iPhone users! They use data! Then he adds some connective tissue, to draw a possible—and disagreeable—solution to the problem into view:

Without the proper management of these networks, De la Vega said, regular data users will be "crowded out" by the small number of users who use massive amounts of data.

Finally, he repeatedly drives the point home that the problem is the fault of greedy users, not his company:

"We have to manage the network to make sure that the few cannot crowd out the many," De la Vega continued. He said the words "crowded out" at least five times in that part of his keynote address.

Never mind the fact that the iPhone has been out since 2007, and that AT&T has has since the first month of returned usage data to figure out what to do about increased demand for wireless data services. All in all, this is just a reminder: AT&T's choice to allow VoIP communications over its 3G network was huge, sure, but it was a strategic move to fend off the FCC, not a sign that they're happy about cooperating in the future, especially when it comes to the really data-intensive stuff, like SlingPlayer or now-even-more-conspicuously-absent iPhone tethering.

In other words, it'd be a stretch to say that "managing the network" is going to be a transparent process—we're going to have to pay, probably through new data rates or tiered plans. [PCWorld]

Cohen is Comcast's executive vice-president for broadband. And of course, he believes that the FCC should get their hands off the internet. Because, you know, everything is perfectly fine now that private companies are controlling it, making sure to block or throttle down any traffic they want, like they did a few months ago. And these internet companies just want to keep doing this because—according to him—that's what benefits all of us, the consumers and companies trying to make free use of a vital infrastructure. One that should be neutral for everyone.

The Comcast VP gets the demagogical corpospeak award of the month with a headline that summarizes his article perfectly: "Does the internet need more regulation? FCC to decide". As in: "Oh, the big BAD government wants to regulate YOUR internet. Are you going to let them do that, your ignorant peasants you?" This comes from a guy who is working for Comcast. You know, the company that the FCC took to court because they were illegally throttling down bandwidth for certain internet applications.

So, does the internet need more regulation, Señor Cohen? Yes, it does. Regulation against you arbitrarily deciding to regulate the service we pay for. And so you and your pals in the communications and entertainment industries don't get all cozy and snuggly to take services or companies out of the network, just because you want to at any given point.

That's not regulation against consumers and companies. That's regulation to avoid that you keep doing whatever you want to in your own benefit, and against the interests of everyone else. [Comcast via Crunchgear]

Adding to previous guidelines, the FCC Chairman talked this morning about how he wants to prohibit any kind of discrimination against any kind of content by Internet access provider. He also wants them to make their network management rules public and clear, so there are no tricks hidden anywhere. Genachowski argues that this is the only way that companies and consumers can have true free access to the internet, leveling the ground for everyone with no arbitrary distinctions.

That's tough talk, Sr. Julius, but bravo is all I can say. We will see what happens, because I'm sure your intentions will find strong opposition from the industry—telcos and entertainment—as well as Vice-President Biden and his bandwagon of RIAA and BSA cheerleaders.

Here is the complete text of his speech:

Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity
Prepared Remarks of Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission
The Brookings Institution
Washington, DC
September 21, 2009

I'd like to thank Brookings for hosting me and this discussion about the future of broadband and the Internet.
We've just finished a summer of big-ticket commemorations, celebrating the 40th anniversaries of the Apollo landing and of Woodstock; 1969 was also a good year to be a kid in New York, with Joe Namath calling the Super Bowl, and the Knicks' season that ended with the legendary Willis Reed in Game 7. I grew up a long fly ball from Shea Stadium and soaked up every minute of the Miracle Mets' season. Maybe that's why I tend to believe in miracles.
But perhaps the most momentous birthday from that famous summer of 1969 went by just a couple of weeks ago with little mention. Just over forty years ago, a handful of engineers in a UCLA lab connected two computers with a 15-foot gray cable and transferred little pieces of data back and forth. It was the first successful test of the ARPANET, the U.S.-government-funded project that became the Internet - the most transformational communications breakthrough since the printing press.
Today, we can't imagine what our lives would be like without the Internet - any more than we can imagine life without running water or the light bulb. Millions of us depend upon it every day: at home, at work, in school - and everywhere in between. The Internet has unleashed the creative genius of countless entrepreneurs and has enabled the creation of jobs - and the launch of small businesses and the expansion of large ones - all across America.
That's why Congress and the President have charged the FCC with developing a National Broadband Plan to ensure that every American has access to open and robust broadband. The fact is that we face great challenges as a nation right now, including health care, education, energy, and public safety. While the Internet alone will not provide a complete solution to any of them, it can and must play a critical role in solving each one.
Why has the Internet proved to be such a powerful engine for creativity, innovation, and economic growth? A big part of the answer traces back to one key decision by the Internet's original architects: to make the Internet an open system.
Historian John Naughton describes the Internet as an attempt to answer the following question: How do you design a network that is "future proof" - that can support the applications that today's inventors have not yet dreamed of? The solution was to devise a network of networks that would not be biased in favor of any particular application. The Internet's creators didn't want the network architecture - or any single entity - to pick winners and losers. Because it might pick the wrong ones. Instead, the Internet's open architecture pushes decision-making and intelligence to the edge of the network - to end users, to the cloud, to businesses of every size and in every sector of the economy, to creators and speakers across the country and around the globe. In the words of Tim Berners-Lee, the Internet is a "blank canvas" - allowing anyone to contribute and to innovate without permission.
It is easy to look at today's Internet giants - and the tremendous benefits they have supplied to our economy and our culture - and forget that many were small businesses just a few years ago, founded on little more than a good idea and a no-frills connection to the Internet. Marc Andreessen was a graduate student when he created Mosaic, which led to Netscape, the first commercially successful Web browser. Mark Zuckerberg was a college student in 2004 when he started Facebook, which just announced that it added its 300 millionth member. Pierre Omidyar originally launched eBay on his own personal website. Today more than 600,000 Americans earn part of their living by operating small businesses on eBay's auction platform, bringing jobs and opportunity to Danvers, Massachusetts, Durham, North Carolina and Lincoln, Nebraska, and many other communities in both rural and urban America. This is the power of the Internet: distributed innovation and ubiquitous entrepreneurship, the potential for jobs and opportunity everywhere there is broadband.
And let us not forget that the open Internet enables much more than commerce. It is also an unprecedented platform for speech, democratic engagement, and a culture that prizes creative new ways of approaching old problems. In 2000, Jimmy Wales started a project to create a free online encyclopedia. He originally commissioned experts to write the entries, but the project only succeeded after moving to volunteers to write them collaboratively. The result is Wikipedia, one of the top 10 most visited websites in the world and one of the most comprehensive aggregations of human knowledge in our history. The potential of collaboration and social media continues to grow. It is changing and accelerating innovation. And we've seen new media tools like Twitter and YouTube used by democratic movements around the globe.
Even now, the Internet is beginning to transform health care, education, and energy usage for the better. Health-related applications, distributed over a widely connected Internet, can help bring down health care costs and improve medical service. Four out of five Americans who are online have accessed medical information over the Internet, and most say this information affected their decision-making. Nearly four million college students took at least one online course in 2007, and the Internet can potentially connect kids anywhere to the best information and teachers everywhere. And the Internet is helping enable smart grid technologies, which promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by hundreds of millions of metric tons.
At the same time, we have also seen great strides in the center of the network. Most Americans' early exposure to the Internet was through analog modems, which allowed a trickle of data through the phone lines to support early electronic bulletin boards and basic email. Over the last two decades, thanks to substantial investment and technological ingenuity, companies devised ways to retrofit networks initially designed for phones and one-way video to support two-way broadband data streams connecting homes and businesses across the country. And a revolution in wireless technologies - using licensed and unlicensed spectrum - and the creation of path-breaking devices like the Blackberry and iPhone have enabled millions of us to carry the Internet in our pockets and purses.
The lesson of each of these stories, and innumerable others like them, is that we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the Internet, except that it will be unexpected; that the genius of American innovators is unlimited; and that the fewer obstacles these innovators face in bringing their work to the world, the greater our opportunity as citizens and as a nation.
Notwithstanding its unparalleled record of success, today the free and open Internet faces emerging and substantial challenges. We've already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet's historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks) and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen at least one service provider deny users access to political content. And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons to be concerned about the future of openness.
One reason has to do with limited competition among service providers. As American consumers make the shift from dial-up to broadband, their choice of providers has narrowed substantially. I don't intend that remark as a policy conclusion or criticism - it is simply a fact about today's marketplace that we must acknowledge and incorporate into our policymaking.
A second reason involves the economic incentives of broadband providers. The great majority of companies that operate our nation's broadband pipes rely upon revenue from selling phone service, cable TV subscriptions, or both. These services increasingly compete with voice and video products provided over the Internet. The net result is that broadband providers' rational bottom-line interests may diverge from the broad interests of consumers in competition and choice.
The third reason involves the explosion of traffic on the Internet. With the growing popularity of high-bandwidth applications, Internet traffic is roughly doubling every two years. Technologies for managing broadband networks have become more sophisticated and widely deployed. But these technologies are just tools. They cannot by themselves determine the right answers to difficult policy questions - and they raise their own set of new questions.
In acknowledging the existence of challenging competitive, economic, and technological realities for today's Internet, I want to underscore that this debate, as I see it, isn't about white hats or black hats among companies in and around the network. Rather, there are inevitable tensions built into our system; important and difficult questions that we have an obligation to ask and to answer correctly for our country.

When I worked in the private sector I was fortunate to work with some of the greatest innovators of our time. That taught me some lessons about the importance of innovation and investment. It also taught me the importance of developing clear goals and then being focused and practical in achieving them, making sure to have the best input and ideas from the broadest group possible.
I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet. I also know that achieving this goal will take an approach that is smart about technology, smart about markets, smart about law and policy, and smart about the lessons of history.
The rise of serious challenges to the free and open Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see the Internet's doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised. Or we could take steps to preserve Internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation, and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.
I understand the Internet is a dynamic network and that technology continues to grow and evolve. I recognize that if we were to create unduly detailed rules that attempted to address every possible assault on openness, such rules would become outdated quickly. But the fact that the Internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can, or should, abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network, or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open Internet.
Saying nothing - and doing nothing - would impose its own form of unacceptable cost. It would deprive innovators and investors of confidence that the free and open Internet we depend upon today will still be here tomorrow. It would deny the benefits of predictable rules of the road to all players in the Internet ecosystem. And it would be a dangerous retreat from the core principle of openness - the freedom to innovate without permission - that has been a hallmark of the Internet since its inception, and has made it so stunningly successful as a platform for innovation, opportunity, and prosperity.
In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.
This is how I propose we move forward: To date, the Federal Communications Commission has addressed these issues by announcing four Internet principles that guide our case-by-case enforcement of the communications laws. These principles can be summarized as: Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.
The principles were initially articulated by Chairman Michael Powell in 2004 as the "Four Freedoms," and later endorsed in a unanimous 2005 policy statement issued by the Commission under Chairman Kevin Martin and with the forceful support of Commissioner Michael Copps, who of course remains on the Commission today. In the years since 2005, the Internet has continued to evolve and the FCC has issued a number of important decisions involving openness. Today, I propose that the FCC adopt the existing principles as Commission rules, along with two additional principles that reflect the evolution of the Internet and that are essential to ensuring its continued openness.
The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination - stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed.
This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications - not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist.
I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement - but must not supplant - free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet.
I will propose that the FCC evaluate alleged violations of the non-discrimination principle as they arise, on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that the Internet is an extraordinarily complex and dynamic system. This approach, within the framework I am proposing today, will allow the Commission to make reasoned, fact-based determinations based on the Internet before it–not based on the Internet of years past or guesses about how the Internet will evolve.
The sixth principle is a transparency principle - stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. Why does the FCC need to adopt this principle? The Internet evolved through open standards. It was conceived as a tool whose user manual would be free and available to all. But new network management practices and technologies challenge this original understanding. Today, broadband providers have the technical ability to change how the Internet works for millions of users - with profound consequences for those users and content, application, and service providers around the world.
To take one example, last year the FCC ruled on the blocking of peer-to-peer transmissions by a cable broadband provider. The blocking was initially implemented with no notice to subscribers or the public. It was discovered only after an engineer and hobbyist living in Oregon realized that his attempts to share public domain recordings of old barbershop quartet songs over a home Internet connection were being frustrated. It was not until he brought the problem to the attention of the media and Internet community, which then brought it to the attention of the FCC, that the improper network management practice became known and was stopped.
We cannot afford to rely on happenstance for consumers, businesses, and policymakers to learn about changes to the basic functioning of the Internet. Greater transparency will give consumers the confidence of knowing that they're getting the service they've paid for, enable innovators to make their offerings work effectively over the Internet, and allow policymakers to ensure that broadband providers are preserving the Internet as a level playing field. It will also help facilitate discussion among all the participants in the Internet ecosystem, which can reduce the need for government involvement in network management disagreements.
To be clear, the transparency principle will not require broadband providers to disclose personal information about subscribers or information that might compromise the security of the network, and there will be a mechanism to protect competitively sensitive data.
In considering the openness of the Internet, it is also important to recognize that our choice of technologies and devices for accessing the Internet continues to expand at a dizzying pace. New mobile and satellite broadband networks are getting faster every day, and extraordinary devices like smartphones and wireless data cards are making it easier to stay connected while on the go. And I note the beginnings of a trend towards openness among several participants in the mobile marketplace.
Even though each form of Internet access has unique technical characteristics, they are all are different roads to the same place. It is essential that the Internet itself remain open, however users reach it. The principles I've been speaking about apply to the Internet however accessed, and I will ask my fellow Commissioners to join me in confirming this.
Of course, how the principles apply may differ depending on the access platform or technology. The rulemaking process will enable the Commission to analyze fully the implications of the principles for mobile network architectures and practices - and how, as a practical matter, they can be fairly and appropriately implemented. As we tackle these complex questions involving different technologies used for Internet access, let me be clear that we will be focused on formulating policies that will maximize innovation and investment, consumer choice, and greater competition.
I've talked about what we need to do; now I'd like to talk about how we should do it. I will soon circulate to my fellow Commissioners proposed rules prepared by Commission staff embodying the principles I've discussed, and I will ask for their support in issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. This notice will provide the public with a detailed explanation of what we propose to do and why.
Equally importantly, the notice will ask for input and feedback on the proposed rules and their application, such as how to determine whether network management practices are reasonable, and what information broadband providers should disclose about their network management practices and in what form. And - as I indicated earlier - it will pose a series of detailed questions on how the Internet openness principles should apply to mobile broadband.
While my goals are clear - to ensure the Internet remains a free and open platform that promotes innovation, investment, competition, and users' interests - our path to implementing them is not pre-determined. I will ensure that the rulemaking process will be fair, transparent, fact-based, and data-driven. Anyone will be able to participate in this process, and I hope everyone will. We will hold a number of public workshops and, of course, use the Internet and other new media tools to facilitate participation. Today we've launched a new website, www.openinternet.gov, to kick off discussion of the issues I've been talking about. We encourage everyone to visit the site and contribute to the process.
Some have argued that the FCC should not take affirmative steps to protect the Internet's openness. Let me be clear about what this is about, and what it isn't.
The fundamental goal of what I've outlined today is preserving the openness and freedom of the Internet. We have an obligation to ensure that the Internet is an enduring engine for U.S. economic growth, and a foundation for democracy in the 21st century. We have an obligation to ensure that the Internet remains a vast landscape of innovation and opportunity.
This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It's about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity.
This is not about protecting the Internet against imaginary dangers. We're seeing the breaks and cracks emerge, and they threaten to change the Internet's fundamental architecture of openness. This would shrink opportunities for innovators, content creators, and small businesses around the country, and limit the full and free expression the Internet promises. This is about preserving and maintaining something profoundly successful and ensuring that it's not distorted or undermined. If we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late.
Some will seek to invoke innovation and investment as reasons not to adopt open Internet rules. But history's lesson is clear: Ensuring a robust and open Internet is the best thing we can do to promote investment and innovation. And while there are some who see every policy decision as either pro-business or pro-consumer, I reject that approach; it's not the right way to see technology's role in America.
An open Internet will benefit both consumers and businesses. The principles that will protect the open Internet are an essential step to maximize investment and innovation in the network and on the edge of it - by establishing rules of the road that incentivize competition, empower entrepreneurs, and grow the economic pie to the benefit of all.
I believe we share a common purpose - we want the Internet to continue flourishing as a platform for innovation and communication, with continued investment and increasing deployment of broadband to all Americans. I believe my fellow Commissioners share this purpose, and I look forward to working collaboratively with them in this endeavor.
In closing, we are here because 40 years ago, a bunch of researchers in a lab changed the way computers interact and, as a result, changed the world. We are here because those Internet pioneers had unique insights about the power of open networks to transform lives for the better, and they did something about it. Our work now is to preserve the brilliance of what they contributed to our country and the world. It's to make sure that, in the 21st century, the garage, the basement, and the dorm room remain places where innovators can not only dream but bring their dreams to life. And no one should be neutral about that.

[All Things D]

Free Press alleges that this restriction is "designed to cripple applications or hinder consumer choice for anticompetitive purposes," which would be an illegal practice. An AT&T spokesman replied that AT&T has "no obligation-nor should we have-to facilitate or subsidize our competitors' businesses."

The issue is part of Free Press's commitment to pursuing net neutrality across all platforms, and not really a way for iPhone users to shirk their voice bill. After all, iPhone plans include mandatory voice plans in addition to data, so the potential money saved would really only be significant for international or roaming calls. President Obama's FCC chairman nominee, Julius Genachowski, is a supporter of net neutrality, so the FCC may indeed act in Skype's favor as a symbolic gesture. But AT&T, despite their reputation, is not the faceless evil tyrant in this case: Certainly they should be allowed to protect their core business.

At the moment, the FCC has not responded, though it is highly likely they will investigate further. [Wall Street Journal]

AT&T says they're not doing any of the actual spotting—the RIAA is handling that part—they're just "forwarding notices from content providers to our customers" to edumacate them. Cnet's Greg Sandoval reports that a Comcast executive said that they've sent customers two million warning notices about infringement. [A Comcast spokesperson later added that these letters weren't part of any new campaign, see below.]

What happens if you ignore AT&T's notices? Will they disconnect you? Here is their lovely wishy-washy answer that really doesn't say anything at all: "We are not suspending or terminating our customers' service. With that said, we do refer customers to our Acceptable Use Policy, which governs use of our service." Just keep in mind, it's the same AT&T that was plotting a massive, intelligent anti-piracy dragnet that would sweep their entire network for pirated content.

Update: Comcast adds via spokesperson that nothing's changed:

"Comcast, like other major ISPs, forwards notices of alleged infringement that we receive from music, movie, videogame, and other content owners to our customers. This is the same process we've had in place for years - nothing has changed. While we have always supported copyright holders in their efforts to reduce piracy under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and continue to do so, we have no plans to test a so-called 'three-strikes-and-you're-out' policy."

Probably not a distinction they want, but since they're the only major ISP that's not seriously clamping down on bandwidth usage and hanging out with the RIAA at bars—the RIAA's new buddy group reportedly includes AT&T, Comcast and Cox—Verizon still looks like the best ISP around for people moving around less-than-legally shiny material (i.e., everyone on the internet), especially if you get FiOS. [Cnet via CrunchGear]

In his time as Washington D.C.'s CTO, Kundra used Google's web apps to not only develop intranets, but also content production systems. And according to cnet, he believes in a platform-independent, open source method of software development. Kundra is also a big proponent of transparency and the offering of information online, helping to shape the U.S. Government's updated tech policy.

Chalk up another net neutrality win for the good guys. And let's not forget, the CTO is still to be announced. [cnet via Electronista]

Since they both vividly recall past PR debacles when it comes to monitoring or borking your internets—AT&T floated and quickly stopped talking about plans for internet-wide copyright dragnet, and Comcast, well, you know—they're not signing any formal agreements this time around.

But the gist is that the ISP would be a courier for the RIAA's notices, with graduated penalties, like suspension, all the way up to termination. Details left to be worked out, according to CNET's sources, are who would pay to send the takedown notices, and how the ISPs would make up the lost revenue from booting users.

Even though in one sense I'm not surprised AT&T and Comcast would be the first to play ball with the RIAA, on the other hand, it seems weird they'd go through the extra effort to be the RIAA's buttboy, given that they're already implementing aggressive traffic management, with monthly data caps and in Comcast's case, slowdowns for heavy users. Especially since the RIAA really has no major leverage over them in terms of content, like say movie studios or networks, who they depend on for content to sell their services to customers.

Hey, at least it's net neutral, right guys?

Update: Here's the official word from AT&T: "While not commenting directly on the RIAA announcement or speculation, we believe that consumer education is a key component to enabling customers to find and use legal methods to access the content they want, and we have also consistently said that automatic cutoff of our customers is not something we would do." [Cnet]